Demographic Characteristics of Patients who Underwent Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry According to Age and Clinical Department

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 85 - 88, 15.01.2025

Veysel Delen , Ferit Doğan

https://doi.org/10.37990/medr.1561239

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the bone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with the prolongation of human living all over the world results taken over a year along with the demographic characteristics of the patients.
Material and Method: This study was performed at the Department of Radiology, Harran University Hospital between January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023. Bone DXA examinations requested from all clinical departments within a one-year period were investigated. Osteoporosis (OP) was evaluated considering clinical department-based six groups and age-based four groups.
Results: A total of 1366 patients from all clinical departments such as physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR), orthopedics, neurology, endocrine, obstetrics and other branches who requested bone DXA were included in the study. Of these, 1166 (85.36%) were women and 200 (14.64%) were men. The PMR was the most frequently prompted clinical department with 721 (52.78%) patients. The OP frequency was highest in the group aged 65 years and older. The lowest OP frequency was seen in the group aged 64 years and younger.
Conclusion: The prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age and the prevalence of OP is higher in women. More than half of DXA requests belong to the PMR department. The PMR department have an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of OP.

Keywords

Osteoporosis, physical medicine and rehabilitation, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, age

Ethical Statement

Dear Editor, We are preferring your journal and submitting our original article ‘’Evaluation of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Results Requested from Patients in Terms of Osteoporosis’’ to the journal for your consideration for publication. We certify that this article is original and the manuscript, or part of it, or closely related papers, has neither been published nor is currently under consideration for publication by any other journal. If accepted, the paper will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without written consent of the copyright holder. We are committed that article does not violate the policies and/or procedures established by journal. The study protocol conforms to the principles of Helsinki Declaration. We have no commercial associations, contractual relations, or proprietary considerations that might pose a conflict of interest related or unrelated with the submitted manuscript, and have had no involvements that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated. If the article is accepted, I want it to be published open acces.

References

• Brown JP. Long-term treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2021;36:544-52.
• LeBoff MS, Greenspan SL, Insogna KL, et al. The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2049-102. Erratum in: Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:2243.
• Kerschan-Schindl K. Prevention and rehabilitation of osteoporosis. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2016;166:22-7.
• Yong EL, Logan S. Menopausal osteoporosis: screening, prevention and treatment. Singapore Med J. 2021;62:159-66.
• Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;319:2521-31.
• Sozen T, Ozisik L, Basaran NC. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017;4:46-56.
• Arceo-Mendoza RM, Camacho P. Prediction of fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis: a brief review. Womens Health (Lond). 2015;11:477-84.
• Kirazlı Y, Atamaz Çalış F, El Ö, et al. Updated approach for the management of osteoporosis in Turkey: a consensus report. Arch Osteoporos. 2020;15:137.
• Salari N, Ghasemi H, Mohammadi L, et al. The global prevalence of osteoporosis in the world: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:609.
• Wade SW, Strader C, Fitzpatrick LA, et al. Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis: examples from industrialized countries. Arch Osteoporos. 2014;9:182.
• Tuzun S, Eskiyurt N, Akarirmak U, et al. Turkish Osteoporosis Society. Incidence of hip fracture and prevalence of osteoporosis in Turkey: the FRACTURK study. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:949-55.
• Tuzun Ş, Gogas Yavuz D, Durmaz B, et al. Updated approach for the management of osteoporosis in Turkey: a consensus report. Arch Osteoporos. 2020;15:137.
• Ülgü MM, Birinci Ş. The epidemiology of osteoporosis in Türkiye: a comprehensive analysis using the e-Nabız database. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2024;70:47-52.