Fracture Risk Assessment: An Update.

➤: Our ability to accurately identify high fracture risk in individuals has improved as the volume of clinical data has expanded and fracture risk assessment tools have been developed. ➤: Given its accessibility, affordability, and low radiation exposure, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the standard for osteoporosis screening and monitoring response to treatment. ➤: The trabecular bone score (TBS) is a DXA software add-on that uses lumbar spine DXA imaging to produce an output that correlates with bone microarchitecture. It has been identified as an independent fracture risk factor and may prove useful in further stratifying fracture risk among those with a bone mineral density (BMD) in the osteopenic range (-1.0 to -2.4 standard deviations), in those with low-energy fractures but normal or only mildly low BMD, or in those with conditions known to impair bone microarchitecture. ➤: Fracture risk assessment tools, including the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Garvan fracture risk calculator, and QFracture, evaluate the impact of multiple clinical factors on fracture risk, even in the absence of BMD data. Each produces an absolute fracture risk output over a defined interval of time. When used appropriately, these enhance our ability to identify high-risk patients and allow us to differentiate fracture risk among patients who present with similar BMDs. ➤: For challenging clinical cases, a combined approach is likely to improve accuracy in the identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from the available osteoporosis therapies.

Osteoporosis: Recent Recommendations and Positions of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

➤: Osteoporosis is common in orthopaedic patients, not only in those sustaining fragility fractures but also in patients ≥50 years old who are having elective orthopaedic surgery. ➤: The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) has developed consensus-based recommendations for secondary fracture prevention for all patients who are ≥65 years old with a hip or spine fracture. ➤: The ASBMR encourages orthopaedic surgeons to "Own the Bone," by beginning prevention of a secondary fracture during hospitalization for a fragility fracture, if practicable, and arranging follow-up for continued bone health care after discharge. ➤: The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recognized that many poor outcomes and complications of elective orthopaedic surgery are related to osteoporosis. ➤: The ISCD used an evidence-based approach to create official positions to identify which patients ≥50 years old who are having elective orthopaedic surgery should undergo assessment of bone health and how this should be performed.

DEXA sensitivity analysis in patients with adult spinal deformity.

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a debilitating condition that commonly requires surgical intervention. However, ASD patients may also present with osteoporosis, predisposing them to surgical complications and failure of instrumentation. As a result, proper detection of low bone mineral density (BMD) is critical in order to ensure proper patient care. Typically dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans are performed on the hip and spine. Unfortunately, in ASD patients, the latter is often inaccurate PURPOSE: In this study, we consider the value of obtaining a forearm DEXA scan in addition to a hip scan in patients suffering from ASD and osteoporosis in order to accurately detect low BMD. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patient data between 2016 and 2018 from a single academic medical center was utilized. Two hundred eighty-six patients met the initial search criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: No outcomes measures related to self-reporting, physiology, or functionality were evaluated in this study. Primary outcome measures analyzed included T-scores across various anatomic locations and diagnoses relating to low bone density (ie, osteopenia and osteoporosis). METHODS: This retrospective study examines patients that underwent DEXA studies between 2016 and 2018 and were previously diagnosed with both osteoporosis and adult spinal deformity. For each patient, age, gender, body mass index, and smoking history were noted, as well as whether there was long-term prednisone use. T-scores from both the forearm and hip were recorded and analyzed. Diagnoses from hip DEXA scans were compared with those obtained from forearm scans to identify which region was more sensitive in detecting low BMD. From this data, the frequency of a missed diagnosis, due to reliance on hip or spine T-scores for detection of low BMD, was extrapolated. No external funding source was received in support of this study. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients matched the initial search criteria. Only 68% had one T-score value. However, 24.8% of patients had data for both the hip and forearm, whereas 7.1% had data for the forearm, hip, and spine. Among the 85 patients with more than one anatomical site of study, the forearm was more sensitive than the hip in its ability to detect osteopenia or osteoporosis 41.2% of the time. A two-tailed t test showed no statistically significant difference between hip T-scores and forearm T-scores. However, for more than 17% of patients, the forearm allowed clinicians to detect osteoporosis or osteopenia in a setting where using only the hip data would have missed such a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to ensure they survey at least two locations when conducting DEXA studies before precluding a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis. All ASD patients being evaluated for low bone density should receive DEXA scans that survey at least the hip and the forearm. Misdiagnoses can be costly in the setting of ASD. They occur frequently when only a single hip scan is relied upon to assess BMD.

Breast density measured volumetrically in a clinical environment: cross-sectional study with photon counting technology.

OBJECTIVE: Mammographic breast density (BDen), the ratio of glandular volume (GVol) to breast volume (BVol), is the second most prevalent risk factor for breast cancer (BC). Newly developed photon counting technology allows precise and systematic measurements in clinical practice. Our objective is to see how these parameters change with age in women with and without cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed results of BDen, GVol, and BVol in 64,182 mammograms performed with photon counting technology on 32,448 consecutive women from April 2014 to December 2015. Only their first study was included. We excluded women with incomplete data or with breast implants. RESULTS: Mean age of women without BC diagnosed during the study period was 52.1 ± 9.9. BC and was found in 263 women (0.81%). Mean age was 53.0 ± 10.4. BDen, GVol, and BVol were 14%, 24%, and 2% greater in women with BC (P < 0.001 for BDen and GVol and P = 0.02 for BVol). BDen and GVol diminished following similar patterns across age in both groups, with soft slopes before and after a steep drop from 50 to 60, probably due to menopause. CONCLUSION: BDen diminishes with age in women with or without BC, but it is generally higher in women with BC. GVol could be a more robust indicator associated with BC risk than BDen. This technology can ease the way to studies of interventions to diminish BDen (or GVol) in the hope of diminishing BC incidence or predict if longitudinal changes are indicative of impending cancer.

Predicting bone strength from CT data: Clinical applications.

In this review we summarise over 15 years of research and development around the prediction of whole bones strength from Computed Tomography data, with particular reference to the prediction of the risk of hip fracture in osteoporotic patients. We briefly discuss the theoretical background, and then provide a summary of the laboratory and clinical validation of these modelling technologies. We then discuss the three current clinical applications: in clinical research, in clinical trials, and in clinical practice. On average the strength predicted with finite element models (QCT-FE) based on computed tomography is 7% more accurate that that predicted with areal bone mineral density from Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA-aBMD), the current standard of care, both in term of laboratory validation on cadaver bones and in terms of stratification accuracy on clinical cohorts of fractured and non-fractured women. This improved accuracy makes QCT-FE superior to DXA-aBMD in clinical research and in clinical trials, where the its use can cut in half the number of patients to be enrolled to get the same statistical power. For routine clinical use to decide who to treat with antiresorptive drugs, QCT-FE is more accurate but less cost-effective than DXA-aBMD, at least when the decision is on first line treatment like bisphosphonates. But the ability to predict skeletal strength from medical imaging is now opening a number of other applications, for example in paediatrics and oncology.

Use of Bone Health Evaluation in Orthopedic Surgery: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the assessment of bone status in orthopedic surgery patients. Key questions included which orthopedic surgery patients should be evaluated for poor bone health prior to surgery and which subsets of patients are at high risk for poor bone health and adverse outcomes. Second, the reliability and validity of using bone densitometry techniques and measurement of specific geometries around the hip and knee before and after arthroplasty was determined. Finally, the use of computed tomography (CT) attenuation coefficients (Hounsfield units) to estimate bone quality at anatomic locations where orthopedic surgery is performed including femur, tibia, shoulder, wrist, and ankle were reviewed. The literature review identified 665 articles of which 198 met inclusion exclusion criteria and were selected based on reporting of methodology, reliability, or validity results. We recommend that the orthopedic surgeon be aware of established ISCD guidelines for determining who should have additional screening for osteoporosis. Patients with inflammatory arthritis, chronic corticosteroid use, chronic renal disease, and those with history of fracture after age 50 are at high risk of osteoporosis and adverse events from surgery and should have dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening before surgery. In addition to standard DXA, bone mineral density (BMD) measurement along the femur and proximal tibia is reliable and valid around implants and can provide valuable information regarding bone remodeling and identification of loosening. Attention to positioning, selection of regions of interest, and use of special techniques and software is required. Plain radiographs and CT provide simple, reliable methods to classify the shape of the proximal femur and to predict osteoporosis; these include the Dorr Classification, Cortical Index, and critical thickness. Correlation of these indices to central BMD is moderate to good. Many patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have had preoperative CT which can be utilized to assess regional quality of bone. The simplest method available on most picture archiving and communications systems is to simply measure a regions of interest and determine the mean Hounsfield units. This method has excellent reliability throughout the skeleton and has moderate correlation to DXA based on BMD. The prediction of outcome and correlation to mechanical strength of fixation of a screw or implant is unknown.

Bone Mineral Density Testing in Spinal Cord Injury: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) causes rapid osteoporosis that is most severe below the level of injury. More than half of those with motor complete SCI will experience an osteoporotic fracture at some point following their injury, with most fractures occurring at the distal femur and proximal tibia. These fractures have devastating consequences, including delayed union or nonunion, cellulitis, skin breakdown, lower extremity amputation, and premature death. Maintaining skeletal integrity and preventing fractures is imperative following SCI to fully benefit from future advances in paralysis cure research and robotic-exoskeletons, brain computer interfaces and other evolving technologies. Clinical care has been previously limited by the lack of consensus derived guidelines or standards regarding dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture risk prediction, or monitoring response to therapies. The International Society of Clinical Densitometry convened a task force to establish Official Positions for bone density assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in individuals with SCI of traumatic or nontraumatic etiology. This task force conducted a series of systematic reviews to guide the development of evidence-based position statements that were reviewed by an expert panel at the 2019 Position Development Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The resulting the International Society of Clinical Densitometry Official Positions are intended to inform clinical care and guide the diagnosis of osteoporosis as well as fracture risk management of osteoporosis following SCI.

Executive Summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on Monitoring Treatment, DXA Cross-calibration and Least Significant Change, Spinal Cord Injury, Peri-prosthetic and Orthopedic Bone Health, Transgender Medicine, and Pediatrics.

To answer important questions in the fields of monitoring with densitometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry machine cross-calibration, monitoring, spinal cord injury, periprosthetic and orthopedic bone health, transgender medicine, and pediatric bone health, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) held a Position Development Conference from March 20 to 23, 2019. Potential topics requiring guidance were solicited from ISCD members in 2017. Following that, a steering committee selected, prioritized, and grouped topics into Task Forces. Chairs for each Task Force were appointed and the members were co-opted from suggestions by the Steering Committee and Task Force Chairs. The Task Forces developed key questions, performed literature searches, and came up with proposed initial positions with substantiating draft publications, with support from the Steering Committee. An invited Panel of Experts first performed a review of draft positions using a modified RAND Appropriateness Method with voting for appropriateness. Draft positions deemed appropriate were further edited and presented at the Position Development Conference meeting in an open forum. A second round of voting occurred after discussions to approve or reject the positions. Finally, a face-to-face closed session with experts and Task Force Chairs, and subsequent electronic follow-up resulted in 34 Official Positions of the ISCD approved by the ISCD Board on May 28, 2019. The Official Positions and the supporting evidence were submitted for publication on July 1, 2019. This paper provides a summary of the all the ISCD Adult and Pediatric Official Positions, with the new 2019 positions highlighted in bold.

Repeating Vertebral Fracture Assessment: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

Vertebral fracture (VF) is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. VFs are associated with a decline in quality of life and high morbidity and mortality. The presence of a VF is a significant risk factor for developing another fracture; however, most VFs are not clinically recognized and diagnosed. Vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is a low cost, low radiation, convenient, and reliable method to identify VFs. The finding of a previously unrecognized VF may change the assessment of fracture risk, diagnostic classification, and treatment strategies. Vertebral fracture assessment or radiographic lateral spine imaging should be repeated in patients with continued high risk for fracture (e.g., historical height loss >4 cm [>1.5 inches], self-reported but undocumented vertebral fracture, or glucocorticoid therapy equivalent to ≥5 mg of prednisone or equivalent per day for greater than or equal to 3 months).

Age at First Osteoporosis Screening Among Older Women and Men: Is Bone Mineral Density Measurement Ordered Timely?

BACKGROUND: US National Osteoporosis Foundation has specified age cut-offs for osteoporosis screening in older women and men. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated whether Turkish seniors undergo their first ever osteoporosis screening early, on time or late. METHODS: We determined the age of older women and men at their first-time Bone Mass Densitometry (BMD) testing using the medical records of a geriatric outpatient unit. The timing of the BMD test was considered ''late'' when performed after the age of 65 and 70 in women and men, respectively. An "early" screening was defined as having a BMD measurement before these age cut-offs. RESULTS: We included 481 individuals in the study (mean age: 74.5±6.5 years, women: 62%). On admission, around 18% of the sample could give no definite information and another 35% had never been assessed for osteoporosis. Among those with a past screening, 64.8% reported comorbid osteoporosis and 33% reported no osteoporosis. Mean age of the first-time BMD measurement was 67.4±7.7 years. The first-time BMD measurement was on time in 9.7%, early in 37.4% and late in 52.9% of the subjects. Half of the individuals with a self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis were non-osteoporotic on a new BMD ordered following the geriatric assessment. Multimorbidity (≥3), parental hip fracture, and smoking were the independent predictors of being early screened. CONCLUSION: We found two-thirds of women and men unscreened for osteoporosis despite being indicated by age. Early and late screening were both prevalent. Self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis was mostly inconsistent with BMD testing in our sample.

Recomendaciones para el uso correcto de densitometría ósea en la práctica clínica. Consenso de la Sociedad Chilena de Endocrinología y Diabetes / Guidelines of the Chilean Endocrinology Society for the correct clinical use of bone densitometry

Osteoporosis is a silent and frequent disease, which increases fracture risk. Approximately half of women and one of five men over 50 years old will suffer an osteoporotic fracture throughout their lives. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) allows a real bone mineral density (BMD) measurement in different parts of the skeleton and is considered the "gold standard" for quantifying osteoporosis with high accuracy and precision. The Board of the Chilean Society of Endocrinology and Diabetes (SOCHED) required from the Bone Disease Study Group to develop a consensus about the "Correct use of bone densitometry in clinical practice in Chilean population". Therefore, we elaborated 25 questions which addressed key aspects about the indications for a DXA scan, and the details of how to perform and report this test. Since some of the evidence obtained was of low quality or inconclusive, we decided to create a multidisciplinary group of national experts in osteoporosis to develop a consensus in this subject. The group consisted of 22 physicians including endocrinologists, gynecologists, geriatricians, radiologists, rheumatologists and nuclear medicine specialists. Using the Delphi methodology to analyze previously agreed questions, we elaborated statements that were evaluated by the experts who expressed their degree of agreement. The final report of this consensus was approved by the SOCHED board.

Manipulation of Muscle Creatine and Glycogen Changes Dual X-ray Absorptiometry Estimates of Body Composition.

Standardizing a dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) protocol is thought to provide a reliable measurement of body composition. PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of manipulating muscle glycogen and creatine content independently and additively on DXA estimates of lean mass. METHOD: Eighteen well-trained male cyclists undertook a parallel group application of creatine loading (n = 9) (20 g·d for 5 d loading; 3 g·d maintenance) or placebo (n = 9) with crossover application of glycogen loading (12 v 6 g·kg BM per day for 48 h) as part of a larger study involving a glycogen-depleting exercise protocol. Body composition, total body water, muscle glycogen and creatine content were assessed via DXA, bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and standard biopsy techniques. Changes in the mean were assessed using the following effect-size scale: >0.2 small, >0.6, moderate, >1.2 large and compared with the threshold for the smallest worthwhile effect of the treatment. RESULTS: Glycogen loading, both with and without creatine loading, resulted in substantial increases in estimates of lean body mass (mean ± SD; 3.0% ± 0.7% and 2.0% ± 0.9%) and leg lean mass (3.1% ± 1.8% and 2.6% ± 1.0%) respectively. A substantial decrease in leg lean mass was observed after the glycogen depleting condition (-1.4% ± 1.6%). Total body water showed substantial increases after glycogen loading (2.3% ± 2.3%), creatine loading (1.4% ± 1.9%) and the combined treatment (2.3% ± 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in muscle metabolites and water content alter DXA estimates of lean mass during periods in which minimal change in muscle protein mass is likely. This information needs to be considered in interpreting the results of DXA-derived estimates of body composition in athletes.

Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to compare BI-RADS density categories with quantitative volumetric breast density (VBD) for the reporting of mammographic sensitivity and to identify which patient factors are most predictive of a diagnosis of interval cancer of the breast versus screen-detected cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included screen-detected cancers (n = 652) and interval cancers (n = 119) identified between January 2009 and December 2012. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine which patient factors are predictive of a diagnosis of interval cancer. Sensitivity (screen-detected cancer / [screen-detected cancer + interval cancer]) was determined with the BI-RADS 4th edition density categories and an automated equivalent density grade obtained with a proprietary tool. Sensitivity changes within automated density grade categories were investigated by use of quantitative thresholds at the midpoints of each category. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, age, menopausal status, and breast density were associated with a diagnosis of interval cancer. Of these risk factors, breast density was the only independent factor whether it was assessed by visual BI-RADS category (odds ratio, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.55-8.10), automated density grade (odds ratio, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.26-9.67), or VBD (odds ratio, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.92-10.61). Sensitivity decreased consistently across increasing automated density grade categories from fatty to extremely dense (95%, 89%, 83%, 65%) and less so for visual BI-RADS (82%, 90%, 84%, 66%). Further dichotomization with VBD cutoffs showed a striking linear relation between VBD and sensitivity (R2 = 0.959). CONCLUSION: In this study, breast density was the only risk factor significantly associated with a diagnosis of interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer. Quantitative VBD captures the potential masking risk of breast density more precisely than does the widely used visual BI-RADS density classification system.

Dense Breast Legislation in the United States: State of the States.

Limitations of screening mammography in patients with dense breasts combined with the significant increased risk for breast cancer have made the issue of dense breasts a matter of great concern in recent years, leading to advocacy for policy change and legislation. Dense breast notification legislation requires direct patient notification of mammographic results indicating the presence of dense breast tissue. The aim of this study was to summarize the state of dense breast notification legislation across the country. The general intent of dense breast notification legislation is to increase awareness of dense breasts and encourage patients to discuss the clinical issues with their physicians. It was first enacted in Connecticut in 2009, and since then, 27 other states have passed, rejected, or considered dense breast notification legislation. At the federal level, a bill was introduced in October 2011, but it was not enacted. There are significant differences in the language of the laws from state to state that complicate implementation. Furthermore, legislated recommendations for possible additional testing are often unaccompanied by legal provisions for insurance coverage, which potentially results in unequal access.

Pharmacist Screening for Risk of Osteoporosis in Elderly Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of pharmacist screening for osteoporosis risk with increased bone mineral density (BMD) testing. DESIGN: Prospective, quasi-experiment. SETTING: Veterans Affairs medical center Community Living Centers (CLC), home-based primary care, and outpatient geriatric clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a routine pharmacist interaction were included. Exclusion criteria included hospice, dialysis, and respite care. INTERVENTIONS: Risk assessment with recommendations communicated by progress notes to consider BMD testing or interventions in the settings described. A second phase of the project was conducted in CLC patients to evaluate the effect of an interdisciplinary team with the inclusion of a physician to assess clinical appropriateness of interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of patients meeting guidelines for BMD testing and change in proportion of patients with BMD testing ordered after intervention. Secondary measures included response to recommendations and initiation of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the first phase of the project, with 120 (54.8%) identified as candidates for BMD testing with recommendations documented. Of this population, 5 patients without previous dual-energy absorptiometry results had BMD testing ordered (P = 0.6). In the second phase, 22 high-risk patients in the CLC met criteria for BMD testing, with 14 determined to have reasons for not pursuing BMD testing. CONCLUSION: Most patients in the settings described met guidelines for BMD testing. Pharmacist recommendations to consider BMD testing did not increase the rate of testing. Including a physician on an interdisciplinary team appeared to help determine appropriateness and improve the rate of testing, though the increase in testing was not statistically significant.

Portable A-Mode Ultrasound for Body Composition Assessment in Adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound (US) imaging is a low-cost, highly feasible alternative method for monitoring the nutritional status of a population; however, only a few studies have tested the body composition agreement between US and reference standard methods, especially in adolescents. The purposes of this study were to assess the agreement of portable US with a reference standard method, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), for body fat percentage (BF%) in adolescents and to verify whether the use of a new mathematical model, based on the anatomic thickness obtained by US, is capable of improving BF% prediction. METHODS: This research was a descriptive study. Measures of total body mass, BF% on DXA, and BF% on US were collected from 105 adolescents. RESULTS: The participants included 71 male adolescents (median age ・} interquartile range, 14.0 ・} 2.0 years) and 34 female adolescents (13.0 ・} 2.3 years). Ultrasound yielded significantly lower BF% values than DXA for male (mean ・} SD, US, 9.6% ・} 6.6%; DXA, 20.0% ・} 7.2%; R= 0.848; P< .05) and female (US, 22.5% ・} 5.7%; DXA, 30.3% ・} 4.9%; R = 0.495; P < .05) participants. In addition, Bland-Altman analysis showed low concordance. When a multivariate regression was tested, the results improved for both sexes (US, 20.3% ・} 4.6%; R= 0.848; P= .503) and female participants (US, 29.0% ・} 5.7%; R= 0.712; P = .993) with a standard estimate of error of 1.57%. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that US applied in a specific regression for BF% prediction in adolescents

Common Mistakes in the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A Retrospective Descriptive Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a widespread metabolic bone disease representing a global public health problem currently affecting more than two hundred million people worldwide. The World Health Organization states that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the best densitometric technique for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). DXA provides an accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis, a good estimation of fracture risk, and is a useful tool for monitoring patients undergoing treatment. Common mistakes in BMD testing can be divided into four principal categories: 1) indication errors, 2) lack of quality control and calibration, 3) analysis and interpretation errors, and 4) inappropriate acquisition techniques. The aim of this retrospective multicenter descriptive study is to identify the common errors in the application of the DXA technique in Turkey. METHODS: All DXA scans performed during the observation period were included in the study if the measurements of both, the lumbar spine and proximal femur were recorded. Forearm measurement, total body measurements, and measurements performed on children were excluded. Each examination was surveyed by 30 consultants from 20 different centers each informed and trained in the principles of and the standards for DXA scanning before the study. RESULTS: A total of 3,212 DXA scan results from 20 different centers in 15 different Turkish cities were collected. The percentage of the discovered erroneous measurements varied from 10.5% to 65.5% in the lumbar spine and from 21.3% to 74.2% in the proximal femur. The overall error rate was found to be 31.8% (n = 1021) for the lumbar spine and 49.0% (n = 1576) for the proximal femur. CONCLUSION: In Turkey, DXA measurements of BMD have been in use for over 20 years, and examination processes continue to improve. There is no educational standard for operator training, and a lack of knowledge can lead to significant errors in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation.