Supra Acetabular Bone Mineral Density Measurements after Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty at Short Term Follow Up

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chabane Ait Yahia ◽  
Sanket Diwanji ◽  
Muthu Ganapati ◽  
Pascal-André Vendittoli ◽  
Martin Lavigne
2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1811-1815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang Huang ◽  
Bin Shen ◽  
Jing Yang ◽  
Zong-ke Zhou ◽  
Peng-de Kang ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikko A. Hakulinen ◽  
Håkan Borg ◽  
Arja Häkkinen ◽  
Tapani Parviainen ◽  
Ilkka Kiviranta ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 1303-1307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. Willis-Owen ◽  
Henry D. Atkinson ◽  
Roger D. Oakeshott

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingo Dominguez Maria Luisa de ◽  
Sonsoles Guadalix Iglesias ◽  
Maria Begona Lopez Alvarez ◽  
Guillermo Martinez Diaz-Guerra ◽  
Federico Hawkins Carranza

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document