Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An update on the diagnosis of osteoporosis

  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1994 the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed guidelines for the diagnosis of osteoporosis based on measurement of bone mineral density. These guidelines have been widely used for epidemiologic studies, clinical research, and treatment strategies. This update reviews the recent literature that has highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic thresholds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Consensus development conference: Diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993, 94:646–650. Provides the first internationally agreed definition of osteoporosis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hui SL, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC: Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study. J Clin Invest 1988, 81:1804–1809.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization: Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical Report Series 843. Geneve, WHO, 1994. Describes the use of bone mineral density assessments for diagnosis and risk assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, et al.: The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1137–1141. Provides the international definitions of osteoporosis from measurements of bone mineral density.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Orimo H, Sugioka Y, Fukunaga M, et al.: The committee of the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research for the Development of Diagnostic Criteria: diagnostic criteria of primary osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Metab 1998, 16:139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization: Guidelines for preclinical evaluation and clinical trials in osteoporosis. Geneve, WHO, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kanis JA, Adami S: Bone loss in the elderly. Osteoporosis Int 4(suppl 1):S59–65.

  8. Ross PD, Huang C, Davis JW, Wasnich RD: Vertebral dimension measurements improve prediction of vertebral fracture incidence. Bone 1994, 16(suppl):257s-262s.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hassager C, Christiansen C: Estrogen/gestagen therapy changes soft-tissue body composition in postmenopausal women. Metabolism 1989, 38:662–665.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pocock NA, Sambrook PN, Nguyen T, et al.: Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual x-ray absorptiometry: comparison of Lunar and Hologic instruments. J Bone Miner Res 1992, 7:1081–1084.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, et al.: Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1503–1514.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. International Committee for Standards and Bone Measurement: Standardisation of femur BMD measurements (letter). J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1316–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenspan SL, Bouxsein ML, Melton ME, et al.: Precision and discriminatory ability of calcaneal bone assessment technologies. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1303–1313.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Grampp S, Genant HK, Mathur A, et al.: Comparisons of non-invasive bone mineral meassurements in assessing age related loss, fracture discrimination, and diagnostic classification. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:697–711.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Abrahamsen B, Hansen TB, Jensen LB, et al.: Site of osteodensitometry in perimenopausal women: correlation and limits of agreement between anatomic regions. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1471–1479.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jergas M, Genant HK: Spinal and femoral DXA for the assessment of spinal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 1997, 61:351–357.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arlot ME, Sornay-Rendu E, Garnero P, et al.: Apparent pre- and postmenopausal bone loss evaluated by DXA at different skeletal sites in women: the OFELY cohort. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:683–690.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Steiger P, Miller P: Discrepancies in osteoporosis prevalence at different skeletal sites: impact on the WHO criteria. Bone 1998, 23:S194.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Block JE, Smith R, Gluer CC, et al.: Models of spinal trabecular bone loss as determined by quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 1989, 4:249–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenspan SL, Maitland-Ramsey L, Myers E: Classification of osteoporosis in the elderly is dependent on site-specific analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 1998, 58:409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Melton LJ: The prevalence of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1769–1771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smeets-Goevaers CG, Lesusink GL, Papapoulos SE, et al.: The prevalence of low bone mineral density in Dutch perimenopausal women: The Eindhoven Perimenopausal Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporosis Int 1998, 8:404–409.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryan PJ, Spector TP, Blake GM, et al.: A comparison of reference bone mineral density measurements derived from two sources: referenced and population based. Br J Radiol 1993, 66:1138–1141.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lehmann R, Wapniarz M, Randerath D, et al.: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry at the lumbar spine in German men and women: a cross sectional study. Calcif Tissue Int 1995, 56:350–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, et al.: Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporosis Int 1998, 8:468–489. Gives reference ranges for osteoporosis in a large sample of the female population.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lunt M, Felsenberg D, Adams J, et al.: Population based geographic variations in DXA bone density in Europe: the EVOS Study. Osteoporosis Int 1997, 7:175–189.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Looker AC, Orwoll ES, Johnston CC, et al.: Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older US adults from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:1761–1768.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen Z, Maricic M, Lund P, et al.: How the new Hologic hip normal reference values affect the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 1998, 8:423–427.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Elffors L, Allander E, Kanis JA, et al.: The variable incidence of hip fracture in Southern Europe: the MEDOS study. Osteoporosis Int 1994, 4:253–263.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ross PD, He Y, Yates AJ, et al.: Body size accounts for most differences in low density between Asian and Caucasian women. The EPIC Study Group. Calcif Tissue Int 1996, 59:339–343.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrun LK, Vogel JM: Prediction of postmenopausal fracture risk with use of bone mineral measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985, 153:745–751.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. DeLaet CEDH, Van Hout BA, Burger H, et al.: Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J 1997, 315:221–225.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. DeLaet CEDH, Van Hout BA, Burger H, et al.: Hip fracture prediction in elderly men and women: validation in the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1587–1593. Shows that the relationship between bone mineral density and hip fracture risk is the same in men and women.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Melton LJ, Atkinson EJ, O’Connor MK, et al.: Bone density and fracture risk in men. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 12:1915–1923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Masud T, Langley S, Wiltshire P, et al.: Effects of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis. Br Med J 1993, 307:172–173.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dyslipidaemia Advisory Group on behalf of the Scientific Committee of the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand: National Heart Foundation Clinical Guidelines for the assessment and management of dyslipidaemia. NZ Med J 1996, 109:224–232.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases (WHO Collaborating Centre), University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, S10 2RX, Sheffield, UK

    John A. Kanis PhD

Authors
  1. John A. Kanis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kanis, J.A. An update on the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2, 62–66 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-996-0070-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-996-0070-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation