I congratulate Schürer et al. on their work; a radiation-free and readily available method for osteoporosis screening or assessment of the risk of fracture is an important aspect of technological innovation in this field (1).
However, I think that the authors overestimate the current level of validation of the chosen technique in their “Discussion” and in the “Strengths and limitations of the study” sections, thus running the risk that the reader may get a slightly distorted view.
Apart from a few older studies on validity, focusing mainly on device-specific, country-specific and population-specific threshold values, a recently published Danish review (2) found that thus far no consensus exists on the threshold values for diagnosing or ruling out osteoporosis. Perhaps, the authors should add this aspect to their “Strengths and limitations of the study” section.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.
References
- 1.Schürer C, Wallaschofski H, Nauck M, Völzke H, Schober HC, Hannemann A. Fracture risk and risk factors for osteoporosis—results from two representative population-based studies in North East Germany (Study of Health in Pomerania: SHIP-2 und SHIP-Trend) Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:365–371. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Thomsen K, Jepsen DB, Matzen L, Hermann AP, Masud T, Ryg J. Is calcaneal quantitative ultrasound useful as a prescreen stratification tool for osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:1459–1475. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-3012-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]