Display options
Cite
Messina C, Bignotti B, Bazzocchi A, et al. A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(3):311-317doi: 10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6.
Messina, C., Bignotti, B., Bazzocchi, A., Phan, C. M., Tagliafico, A., Guglielmi, G., Sardanelli, F., & Sconfienza, L. M. (2017). A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative. Insights into imaging, 8(3), 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6
Messina, Carmelo, et al. "A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative." Insights into imaging vol. 8,3 (2017): 311-317. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6
Messina C, Bignotti B, Bazzocchi A, Phan CM, Tagliafico A, Guglielmi G, Sardanelli F, Sconfienza LM. A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative. Insights Imaging. 2017 Jun;8(3):311-317. doi: 10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6. Epub 2017 Apr 21. PMID: 28432574; PMCID: PMC5438319.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Insights Imaging. 2017 Jun;8(3):311-317. doi: 10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6. Epub 2017 Apr 21.

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative.

Insights into imaging

Carmelo Messina, Bianca Bignotti, Alberto Bazzocchi, Catherine M Phan, Alberto Tagliafico, Giuseppe Guglielmi, Francesco Sardanelli, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Affiliations

  1. Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
  2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
  3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, The "Rizzoli" Orthopaedic Institute, Via G. C. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
  4. Department of Radiology, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France.
  5. University of Genova and AOU IRCCS San Martino IST, Genoa, Italy.
  6. Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
  7. Servizio di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza Malan 1, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.
  8. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Pascal 36, 20133, Milan, Italy.
  9. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Pascal 36, 20133, Milan, Italy. [email protected].
  10. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. [email protected].

PMID: 28432574 PMCID: PMC5438319 DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults.

METHODS: Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers' scores.

RESULTS: Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.

MAIN MESSAGES: • Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%). • Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%). • Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%). • Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

Keywords: Agree; DXA; Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; Evidence based medicine; Guidelines

References

  1. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25153 - PubMed
  2. CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42 - PubMed
  3. Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):103-6 - PubMed
  4. Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jan;24(1):23-57 - PubMed
  5. Ophthalmology. 2011 Jun;118(6):1017-23 - PubMed
  6. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;27(1):40-8 - PubMed
  7. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013 Jan;9(1):28-42 - PubMed
  8. Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):533-40 - PubMed
  9. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11:6 - PubMed
  10. Am J Med. 1993 Jun;94(6):646-50 - PubMed
  11. Bone. 2008 Dec;43(6):1115-21 - PubMed
  12. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e87711 - PubMed
  13. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47343 - PubMed
  14. BMJ. 2011 Oct 11;343:d5621 - PubMed
  15. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Nov 26;172(21):1628-33 - PubMed
  16. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2016 Jul;20(3):246-253 - PubMed
  17. JAMA. 1999 May 26;281(20):1900-5 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Sep;71(3):406-14 - PubMed
  19. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 17;9(11):e111796 - PubMed
  20. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Jun;17(3):235-42 - PubMed
  21. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2005 Jun;56(3):178-88 - PubMed
  22. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Feb;49(2):273-284 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e58625 - PubMed
  24. Eur Radiol. 2015 May;25(5):1504-11 - PubMed

Publication Types