DXA Errors Are Common and Reduced by Use of a Reporting Template

High quality dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) acquisition, analysis, and reporting demands technical and interpretive excellence. We hypothesized that DXA errors are common and of such magnitude that incorrect clinical decisions might result. In this 2-phase study, we evaluated DXA technical and interpretation error rates in a clinical population and subsequently assessed if implementing an interpretation template reduced errors.

In phase 1, DXA scans of 345 osteoporosis clinic referrals were reviewed by International Society for Clinical Densitometry-certified technologists (n = 3) and physicians (n = 3). Technologists applied International Society for Clinical Densitometry performance standards to assess technical quality. Physicians assessed reporting compliance with published guidance, relevance of technical errors and determined overall and major error prevalence. Major errors were defined as "provision of inaccurate information that could potentially lead to incorrect patient care decisions." In phase 2, a DXA reporting template was implemented at 2 clinical DXA sites after which the 3 physicians reviewed 200 images and reports as above. The error prevalence was compared with the 298 patients in phase 1 from these sites.

In phase 1, technical errors were identified in 90% of patients and affected interpretation in 13%. Interpretation errors were present in 80% of patients; 42% were major. The most common major errors were reporting incorrect information on bone mineral density change (70%) and incorrect diagnosis (22%). In phase 2, at these 2 clinical sites, major errors were present in 37% before and 17% after template implementation. Template usage reduced the odds of major error by 66% (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.21, 0.53, and p < 0.0001).

DXA technical and interpretation errors are extremely common and likely adversely affect patient care. Implementing a DXA reporting template reduces major errors and should become common practice. Additional interventions, such as requiring initial and ongoing training and/or certification for technologists and interpreters, are suggested.