Portable Bone Imaging Devices for Screening and Diagnosing Osteoporosis

Abstract


 Limited evidence describing the clinical utility of 2 types of portable bone imaging devices suggest that they may be comparable to DXA for predicting the incidence of fracture, but the findings are uncertain.
 Incorporating 1 type of portable bone imaging device into a screening and diagnosis management pathway for osteoporosis was more cost-effective in a Finnish context, compared to an osteoporosis management approach that did not include the portable bone imaging device.
 Two guidelines were found that have recommendations about portable bone imaging devices for screening and diagnosing osteoporosis. Both guidelines reported limited evidence on the use of portable bone imaging devices.

Comparative analysis of bone outcomes between quantitative ultrasound and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry from the UK Biobank cohort

“…In conclusion, despite concerns that QUS and DXA measure very different qualities, QUS is routinely used and evaluated for its potential use as a diagnostic tool [ 6 ] as it represents a safer, lower cost, lower resource, and more portable alternative to DXA. The present study comprises one of the largest and most comprehensive analyses of QUS and despite the many practical advantages offered by the technology, several limitations must be acknowledged.…”

“…Additionally, DXA omits a dose of ionising radiation, such that recommendations are that its use must be kept as low as reasonably achievable [ 5 ]. Given the limiting factors of DXA and the need to screen individuals worldwide often in rural and resource-constrained areas [ 6 ] to prevent large scale underdiagnosis of osteoporosis, other technologies have been developed with the hope they can provide suitable estimates of BMD without the associated costs, resource implications, and potential harms. One such technology includes quantitative ultrasound (QUS), which provides a non-invasive method to estimate BMD and other potentially relevant bone structural characteristics at peripheral skeletal sites [ 7 ].…”