Technical Note: Bone mineral density measurements of strontium-rich trabecular bone-mimicking phantoms using quantitative ultrasound

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 5817-5825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bisma Rizvi ◽  
Eric Da Silva ◽  
Luba Slatkovska ◽  
Angela M. Cheung ◽  
Jahan Tavakkoli ◽  
...  
1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (S1) ◽  
pp. 170-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
F E Alenfeld ◽  
U Eggens ◽  
E Diessel ◽  
C Müller ◽  
J Braun ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 77-78
Author(s):  
Roxana Dusceac ◽  
Dan Niculescu ◽  
Madalina Sorohan ◽  
Ramona Dobre ◽  
Catalina Poiana

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taryn Smith ◽  
Laura Tripkovic ◽  
Camilla Damsgaard ◽  
Christian Molgaard ◽  
Aine Hennessy ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Blanco-Rodriguez ◽  
Nicole Ellis-Infante ◽  
Victor Lopez-Rivas ◽  
Sherlin May-Kim ◽  
Charlotte Pickett ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 89 (8) ◽  
pp. 457-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J Torgerson ◽  
C Donaldson ◽  
D M Reid

Bone mineral density measurements have been criticized on the grounds that they are not a worth-while screening tool. In this paper we argue that bone mineral measurements can be an efficient diagnostic tool even if they are not of proven value for screening. There is complex relationship between the costs of a measurement, the intervention and the predictive value of the test all of which must be accounted for when assessing the value of a bone density measurement. For bone density measurements to be used for screening, a wider evaluation needs to be undertaken compared with that for their use as a diagnostic tool. We address some common objections, for example, that low compliance with screening would undermine efficiency, and show that these are not relevant. Evaluations of screening need to address issues that are likely to affect efficiency.


Bone ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Kröger ◽  
P. Vainio ◽  
J. Nieminen ◽  
A. Kotaniemi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document