A national random survey of bone mineral density reporting in the United States

DXA Reporting Updates: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

INTRODUCTION

Professional guidance and standards assist radiologic interpreters in generating high quality reports. Initially DXA reporting Official Positions were provided by the ISCD in 2003; however, as the field has progressed, some of the current recommendations require revision and updating. This manuscript details the research approach and provides updated DXA reporting guidance.

METHODS

Key Questions were proposed by ISCD established protocols and approved by the Position Development Conference Steering Committee. Literature related to each question was accumulated by searching PubMed, and existing guidelines from other organizations were extracted from websites. Modifications and additions to the ISCD Official Positions were determined by an expert panel after reviewing the Task Force proposals and position papers.

RESULTS

Since most DXA is now performed in radiology departments, an approach was endorsed that better aligns with standard radiologic reports. To achieve this, reporting elements were divided into required minimum or optional. Collectively, required components comprise a standard diagnostic report and are considered the minimum necessary to generate an acceptable report. Additional elements were retained and categorized as optional. These optional components were considered relevant but tailored to a consultative, clinically oriented report. Although this information is beneficial, not all interpreters have access to sufficient clinical information, or may not have the clinical expertise to expand beyond a diagnostic report. Consequently, these are not required for an acceptable report.

CONCLUSION

These updated ISCD positions conform with the DXA field's evolution over the past 20 years. Specifically, a basic diagnostic report better aligns with radiology standards, and additional elements (which are valued by treating clinicians) remain acceptable but are optional and not required. Additionally, reporting guidance for newer elements such as fracture risk assessment are incorporated. It is our expectation that these updated Official Positions will improve compliance with required standards and generate high quality DXA reports that are valuable to the recipient clinician and contribute to best patient care.

National Survey of the Bone Densitometry Evaluation Process Within an Integrated Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

To assess the current state of bone mineral density evaluation services via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provided to Veterans with fracture risk through the development and administration of a nationwide survey of facilities in the Veterans Health Administration.

METHODOLOGY

The Bone Densitometry Survey was developed by convening a Work Group of individuals with expertise in bone densitometry and engaging the Work Group in an iterative drafting and revision process. Once completed, the survey was beta tested, administered through REDCap, and sent via e-mail to points of contact at 178 VHA facilities.

RESULTS

Facility response rate was 31 % (56/178). Most DXA centers reported positively to markers of readiness for their bone densitometers: less than 10 years old (n=35; 63 %); in "excellent" or "good" condition (n=44; 78 %, 32 % and 46 %, respectively); and perform phantom calibration (n=43; 77 %). Forty-one DXA centers (73 %) use intake processes that have been shown to reduce errors. Thirty-seven DXA centers (66 %) reported their technologists receive specialized training in DXA, while 14 (25 %) indicated they receive accredited training. Seventeen DXA centers (30 %) reported performing routine precision assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many DXA centers reported using practices that meet minimal standards for DXA reporting and preparation; however, the lack of standardization, even within an integrated healthcare system, indicates an opportunity for quality improvement to ensure consistent high quality bone mineral density evaluation of Veterans.

Association between Metabolic Obesity Phenotypes and the Burden of Hospitalized Postmenopausal Patients Concomitant with Osteoporosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on the National Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

The present definition of obesity based on body mass index (BMI) is not accurate and effective enough to identify hospitalized patients with a heavier burden, especially for postmenopausal hospitalized patients concomitant with osteoporosis. The link between common concomitant disorders of major chronic diseases such as osteoporosis, obesity, and metabolic syndrome (MS) remains unclear. Here, we aim to evaluate the impact of different metabolic obesity phenotypes on the burden of postmenopausal hospitalized patients concomitant with osteoporosis in view of unplanned readmissions.

METHODS

Data was acquired from the National Readmission Database 2018. The study population was classified into metabolically healthy non-obese (MHNO), metabolically unhealthy non-obese (MUNO), metabolically healthy obese (MHO), and metabolically unhealthy obese (MUO) patients. We estimated the associations between metabolic obesity phenotypes and 30- and 90-day unplanned readmissions. A multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) model was used to assess the effect of factors on endpoints, with results expressed as HR and 95% CI.

RESULTS

The 30-day and 90-day readmission rates for the MUNO and MUO phenotypes were higher than that of the MHNO group (all p < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between the MHNO and MHO groups. For 30-day readmissions, MUNO raised the risk mildly (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.110, p < 0.001), MHO had a higher risk (HR = 1.145, p = 0.002), and MUO further elevated this risk (HR = 1.238, p < 0.001). As for 90-day readmissions, both MUNO and MHO raised the risk slightly (HR = 1.134, p < 0.001; HR = 1.093, p = 0.014, respectively), and MUO had the highest risk (HR = 1.263, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Metabolic abnormalities were associated with elevated rates and risks of 30- or 90-day readmission among postmenopausal hospitalized women complicated with osteoporosis, whereas obesity did not seem to be innocent, and the combination of these factors led to an additional burden on healthcare systems and individuals. These findings indicate that clinicians and researchers should focus not only on weight management but also metabolism intervention among patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Common errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in imaging centers in Ecuador

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is recognized for measuring bone mineral density. The lack of knowledge can lead to errors both in the acquisition of information and in its analysis and subsequent interpretation. The main errors in Ecuadorian Centers were positioning of the patient to the equipment and incorrect analyzed area.

PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is recognized as the gold standard for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) with acceptable errors, good precision, and reproducibility. However, the training of operators in different centers and countries is not standardized, and the lack of knowledge can lead to errors both in the acquisition of information and in its analysis and subsequent interpretation. The purpose was to determine the most common errors in the performance of bone densitometry from different imaging centers in Ecuador.

METHODS

Cross-sectional descriptive study. We collected DXA scans from different imaging centers in Ecuador. Data from the DXA scan included city of origin, type of specialist that requested it, and densitometry diagnosis. The DXA images provided were analyzed double blind by experts in the field from Argentina.

RESULTS

From a total of 141 patients with a mean age of 61 ± 10 years, 93.6% were women. About 78% of the DXA scans came from private imaging centers and 22% from public centers, 95% of all came from the city of Guayaquil. The machines used were Hologic 50.4% and Lunar 49.6%. The densitometric diagnosis was 16.3% normal, 46.1% osteoporosis, and 37.6% osteopenia. A total of 112 left hip and 49 right hip scans were analyzed from which 31.2% and 22.4% had errors in patient positioning, respectively, mainly internal or external rotation. About 140 lumbar scans were analyzed from which 21.4% had patient positioning errors (not centered or not straight). Also in 38.5% the vertebral area did not correspond to L1-L4. About 3.5% had artifacts such as a metal bar or implant. The region of interest was misplaced in 24.1% of the lumbar scans and 19.9% of the femur.

CONCLUSIONS

DXA quality standards exist but are often not implemented in clinical practice. When studies are performed incorrectly, it can lead to important errors in diagnosis and therapy. Physicians interested in the management of osteoporosis, although not directly involved in the performance and interpretation of DXA, should be familiar with the protocols to minimize errors and allow the proper use of bone densitometry.

Quality in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for measuring bone mineral density (BMD), making the diagnosis of osteoporosis, and for monitoring changes in BMD over time. DXA data are also used in the determination of fracture risk. Procedural steps in DXA scanning can be broken down into scan acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and reporting. Careful attention to quality control pertaining to these procedural steps should theoretically be beneficial in patient management. Inattention to procedural steps and errors that may occur at each step has the possibility of providing information that would inform inappropriate clinical decisions, generating unnecessary healthcare expenses and ultimately causing avoidable harm to patients. This article reviews errors in DXA scanning that affect trueness and precision related to the machine, the patient, and the technologist and reviews articles which document problems with DXA quality in clinical and research settings. An understanding of DXA errors is critical for DXA quality; programs such as certification of DXA technologists and interpreters help in assuring quality bone densitometry. As DXA errors are common, pay for performance requiring DXA technologists and interpreters to be certified and follow quality indicators is indicated.

What should DXA reports contain? Preferences of ordering health care providers

It has previously been reported that clinicians prefer detailed dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reports. However, there are limited recent data to support this contention. Given the emphasis on bone mass measurement and osteoporosis treatment that occurred over the past decade, we hypothesized that clinicians would no longer desire detailed DXA reports. As such, we surveyed 234 university health care providers who had ordered one or more DXA scans from October 2005 through February 2006. All providers were requested to complete an anonymous survey expressing their preferences regarding potential elements of a central DXA report using a 1-5 scale. Of the 234 surveys sent, 116 (50%) were returned. Over 90% felt that DXA reports should include a statement regarding the study's technical quality and limitations, the T-score and definition of significant change. Similarly, over 80% felt that a statement about fracture risk and the BMD least significant change to be essential or helpful. Although a majority of clinicians requested recommendations for non-BMD testing, pharmacologic/nonpharmacologic interventions and specific recommendations for evaluation of secondary osteoporosis, a substantial minority (approximately 20%) found such recommendations either not required or definitely unnecessary. That this survey was conducted among university clinicians is a limitation, which may impact generalizability. In conclusion, clinicians responding to this survey continue to prefer detailed DXA reports with over 60% desiring inclusion of all the components recommended for DXA reports by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Despite the finding that a majority of providers continue to request such "consultative" reports, DXA interpreters should be cautioned that this approach requires fairly extensive and accurate clinical information and that not all clinicians desire recommendations for additional evaluation and treatment.

Osteoporosis: What a clinician expects to learn from a patient's bone density examination

Osteoporosis has lately become recognized as an important disease on two accounts. On one hand, demographic change has resulted in a greatly increased and increasing burden of morbidity and mortality due to osteoporotic fracturing. On the other hand, lifestyle changes and preventive measures have become recognized as important factors in prevention of both osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures, while several effective drug treatments have recently become available to treat osteoporosis by increasing bone density and reducing fracture incidence. Because bone density is, with age, the best predictor of fracture risk, its measurement has become central to the care of those potentially at risk. When a clinician refers a person for a bone density examination, the clinician should be concerned less with an "imaging diagnosis" than with the requirement that the laboratory has procedures in place for rigorous quality assurance and precision measurements, as well as for education of the staff involved. Implementation of these measures and an understanding of their clinical relevance in diagnosis and follow-up, as well as communication with clinicians in this context, are more important than any diagnostic insight that might be provided by "interpreting" a bone density study.

Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess the extent of agreement among radiologists and nonradiologists in perception of diagnostic certainty conveyed by words and phrases commonly used in radiology reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was performed in a large academic radiology department. To determine the commonly used terminology for conveying diagnostic certainty in radiology reports, 12 randomly selected radiologists from six different subspecialties were interviewed. The authors identified the 15 most commonly used words and phrases and included these in random order in a questionnaire sent to all staff radiologists (n = 45) and to 158 referring physicians. Physicians were asked to rank the 15 phrases in order of the diagnostic certainty conveyed by each, from 1 (most certain) to 15 (least certain), using each number only once. The kappa statistic was used to assess agreement in rank order among physicians.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 76% (n = 34) for radiologists and 49% (n = 78) for nonradiologists. There was excellent agreement among radiologists (kappa = 0.95) and nonradiologists (kappa = 0.93) in the rank order for the phrase diagnostic of. Although there was good agreement (kappa = 0.45) among radiologists for the word unlikely, agreement among nonradiologists was poor (kappa = 0.27). There was very poor agreement among all physicians for the rank order of the other 13 phrases.

CONCLUSION

Among radiologists and nonradiologists, concordance was poor regarding the diagnostic certainty associated with phrases commonly used in radiology reports. Because poor agreement could lead to suboptimal quality of care, the standardization of terminology would benefit all parties.