Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 12, Issue 1 , Pages 5-10, January 2009

What Should DXA Reports Contain? Preferences of Ordering Health Care Providers

  • Neil Binkley

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Neil Binkley, MD, University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Research Program, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
  • ,
  • Diane Krueger

Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

Received 20 January 2008; received in revised form 6 April 2008; accepted 16 April 2008. published online 13 June 2008.

Abstract 

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.

Key Words: Diagnosis, DXA, reporting, bone mineral density, osteoporosis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1094-6950(08)00057-7

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2008.04.004

Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 12, Issue 1 , Pages 5-10, January 2009