BMJ 1994;308:931-932 (9 April)

Editorials

Bone mass measurements: reasons to be cautious

Interpretation of a single measurement of bone mass, like evaluation of a child's height, must take age into account. Like cholesterol concentrations, bone mass is associated with risk even when values are in the "normal" range. Considering this will avoid those "below the fracture threshold" being frightened or those who have a "normal" bone mass being falsely reassured. The absolute risk of a fracture doubles with each decade after the age of 50, and, at any age, the relative risk of fracture increase 1.5-fold to twofold for each standard deviation decrease in bone mass (roughly 10%).1

Interpreting a change in bone mass requires caution. Problems arise from the imprecision of instruments, the increasing risks with multiple measurements of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true (type I error), assumptions that bone density is a volumetric density, suggestions that treatment causes linear increases in bone mass, and assumptions that the . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Bone densitometry Is a valuable investigation
J E Compston, W E Duncan, D M Stott, K D Burman, A S Change, D M Reid, C Cooper, I Fogelman, R Eastell, and A Woolf
BMJ 1994 308: 1567. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Compston, J E, Duncan, W E, Stott, D M, Burman, K D, Change, A S, Reid, D M, Cooper, C, Fogelman, I, Eastell, R, Woolf, A (1994). Bone densitometry Is a valuable investigation. BMJ 308: 1567-1567 [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ