Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brian C Lentle

Publications and source records attributed to Brian C Lentle.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Precision assessment and radiation safety for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: position paper of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis, assess the risk of fracture, and monitor changes in BMD over time. Because biological changes in BMD are usually small in proportion to the error inherent in the test itself, interpretation of serial BMD tests depends on knowledge of the smallest change in BMD that is beyond the range of error. This value, called the least significant change (LSC), varies according to the instrument used, the patient population being tested, the measurement site, the skill of the technologist at positioning the patient and analyzing the test, and the confidence interval used in the calculation. The precision and LSC values provided by the manufacturer cannot be applied to clinical bone densitometry centers because of the differences in the patients being tested and the technologist performing the test. Because harmful errors in clinical management may occur from incorrectly interpreting serial BMD tests, it is recommended that every DXA technologist conduct a precision assessment and calculate the LSC for each measurement site and DXA instrument used. Precision assessment provides direct benefit to patients by allowing clinicians to make clinical decisions based on genuine change or stability of BMD. The patient-care benefits of precision assessment outweigh the risk of exposure to trivial doses of ionizing radiation.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗
PubMed2005

Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a set of recommendations for optimal bone mineral density (BMD) reporting in postmenopausal women and older men and to provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. OPTIONS: The current methods of BMD reporting were reviewed. In this document, we propose that an individual's 10-year absolute fracture risk, rather than BMD alone, be used for fracture risk categorization. Consequently, age, sex, BMD, fragility fracture history, and glucocorticoid use are the basis for the approach outlined in this document. OUTCOMES: An optimal BMD report as proposed in this document will provide clinicians with both a BMD diagnostic category and a useful tool to assess an individual's risk of osteoporotic fracture. A BMD report format, a checklist, and a patient questionnaire are meant to further encourage its use. EVIDENCE: All recommendations were developed using a consensus from clinicians and experts in the field of BMD testing and a standard method for the evaluation and citation of the supporting evidence. VALUES: These recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary working group under the auspices of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists. BENEFITS, HARM, AND COSTS: Optimal BMD reports help the practitioner to assess an individual's risk for osteoporotic fracture and to decide whether medical therapy is warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS: The BMD report should include: patient identifiers. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner identifier. BMD results expressed in absolute values (g/cm2; 3 decimal places) and T-score (1 decimal place) for lumbar spine; proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter); and an alternate site (forearm BMD preferred: 1/3 radius, 33% radius or proximal radius) if either hip or spine is not valid. A statement about any limitations due to artifacts, if present. The fracture risk category (low, moderate, or high) as determined by using Tables 3 and 4 and by including major clinical factors that modify absolute fracture risk probability (with an indication of the corresponding absolute 10-year fracture risk of <10%, 10-20%, or >20%). A statement as to whether the change is statistically significant or not for serial measurements. The BMD centre's least significant change for each skeletal site (in g/cm2) should be included. VALIDATION: Recommendations were based on consensus opinion. Since these are the first Canadian recommendations integrating clinical risk factors in a quantitative fracture risk assessment, it is anticipated that these "Recommendations for BMD Reporting in Canada" will be a work in progress and will be updated periodically to accommodate advances in this field.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗
PubMed2004

Standards and guidelines for performing central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in premenopausal women, men, and children.

The Canadian Panel of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry has developed standards in order to establish the minimum level of acceptable performance for the practice of bone densitometry in Canada. Previously, this group addressed the performance of densitometry in postmenopausal women. This report addresses the use of densitometry in men, premenopausal women, and children with a focus on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗
PubMed2003

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.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗