WHO osteoporosis definitions ignore child development stages. Misapplying adult DXA criteria overdiagnoses healthy kids, causing unnecessary treatment with highly toxic drugs like Fosamax whose risks remain under-recognized.

In 1994, the World Health Organization (WHO) put forth an operational definition for osteoporosis, classifying it as bone mineral density (BMD) 2.5 standard deviations below the mean peak bone mass of a young adult Caucasian woman, as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA).¹ While ostensibly created for clinical and research purposes, this definition was conceived by a panel rife with conflicts of interest tied to pharmaceutical companies developing drug treatments.²

The WHO definition has been heavily criticized for lack of connection to fracture risk or morbidity, bias toward pharmaceuticalization, and failure to account for complex physiological factors.^3,4

As Drs. Wright and Looker stated in 2003,

"The WHO criteria were never intended to constitute the definition of a disease, only to provide a practical tool for assessing risk of fracture."⁵

Regardless, through extensive marketing, the medical community rapidly adopted the WHO classification system. This catalyzed a massive expansion in DXA scanning to assess osteoporosis risk.^6,7

Problems Applying WHO Criteria to Children

When applied to children, several major issues arise with the WHO osteoporosis classification system. First and foremost is the use of T-scores, which compare a child’s BMD to a young adult reference mean.⁸ As children have lower peak bone mass compared to adults, their T-scores will inevitably appear far below normal.⁹

Instead of T-scores, children should be assessed using Z-scores, which compare the child’s BMD to an age-matched mean.¹⁰ However, as pre-pubertal children have less sex hormone-mediated skeletal growth, their BMD can still appear reduced compared to pubertal children. This had led to calls for standards incorporating pubertal stages.¹¹

Additionally, a child’s measured areal BMD depends greatly on their bone size,¹² while fracture risk relates much more to volumetric BMD and bone microarchitecture.¹³ Research teams have worked for years to translate children’s DXA results into proper volumetric BMD Z-scores accounting for age, sex, puberty, size, and ethnicity to facilitate clinical interpretation.^14,15

The myriad complexities in assessing children’s bone health makes it "impossible to diagnose osteoporosis" using DXA alone.¹⁶ Thus, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommends diagnosis incorporate thorough history, physical exam, DXA results, and validated methods to adjust BMD for body size.¹⁷

High Rates of Misdiagnosis in Children

Despite long-standing guidance to properly interpret children’s DXA scans, concerning evidence indicates mistakes remain extremely common. A 2004 study found 88% of children with diagnosed low BMD had major errors in their interpretation.¹⁸ Strikingly, 53% were reclassified as normal BMD when properly analyzed by pediatric standards. Much of this overdiagnosis resulted from utilizing adult criteria to analyze children’s scans.

A 2015 study of Australasian pediatric centers found 63% of reporting clinicians utilized inappropriate T-scores to determine children’s DXA results.¹⁹ A survey of American pediatric orthopedists in 2018 showed only 34% correctly stated T-scores should not be used in children.²⁰ Alarmingly, studies continue showing many healthy children mistakenly given osteoporosis diagnoses, causing unnecessary treatment and family distress.^21,22

This evidence indicates guidelines for properly interpreting pediatric DXA scans have not been sufficiently implemented. Researchers suggest this failure reflects DXA results frequently being analyzed in high volume by technicians and physicians without specific pediatric training.^18,23 Moving forward, providers with expertise in pediatric bone health must proactively engage community providers to prevent continued overdiagnosis of healthy children.²⁴

The Context: Problems with the WHO Classification System

As highlighted by this evidence, extending the WHO osteoporosis classifications to children recurs the same problems as seen for adult definitions – overly simplistic numerical thresholds that ignore individual variability and complex physiological factors. The WHO system disregards salient clinical data on nutrition, genetics, hormonal exposures, bone geometry, and lifestyle to narrowly focus on DXA T-scores.²⁵

Yet substantial evidence shows the WHO classifications provide little meaningful information on fracture risk beyond age and clinical risk factors alone.^26,27  Regardless, extensive marketing led to rapid, widespread adoption of DXA screening and pharmacological treatment targeting WHO criteria.^28,29 Usage further escalated after procedures were approved for insurance reimbursement in the United States.^30,31

Public health advocates argue this massive expansion of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment predominantly benefits equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, not patients.³²

As entrepreneur Peter Diamandis stated, 

"a billion-dollar industry has been built based on the marketing of fear."³³

Concerning evidence links osteoporosis treatment overuse with serious adverse effects like heart disease, atrial fibrillation, esophageal cancer, and devastating bone decay.^34-36

In totality, the WHO classification system fails to appropriately describe either children or adults’ true bone health and fracture risk. For children, applying inappropriate adult criteria due to lack of provider specialization causes frequent misdiagnosis of healthy pediatric patients. This reflects a larger issue - the erroneous overextension of arbitrary DXA thresholds absent nuanced clinical data. Moving forward, substantial reforms addressing the outsized influence of industry marketing on clinical standards seem necessary to prevent further overmedicalization in bone health policy.

Prevalence of Pediatric Osteoporosis Diagnoses and Associated Harms

Despite lack of evidence supporting widespread bone density testing or osteoporosis diagnosis in children, concerning trends show increasing rates in recent decades. A US study found osteoporosis diagnosis in children <18 years old more than doubled from 1999 to 2014.37 By 2014, over 50,000 pediatric patients carried osteoporosis diagnoses.37 Surveys suggest up to 30-50% of children with brittle bone disease diagnoses may not meet appropriate clinical criteria.³⁸

Once labeled with osteoporosis, children frequently receive drug interventions lacking safety data.

Bisphosphonates like Fosamax reduce bone turnover, but have been associated with devastating side effects like osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures when used off-label in children.^39-41 Yet these risks remain under-recognized, with one study showing only 26% of pediatricians were aware of bisphosphonate complications.⁴² More cautious approaches utilize rehabilitative strength training and nutrition modifications tailored to the individual child’s needs to support functional gains.⁴³

The harms revealed by evidence argue against widespread early bone density testing and osteoporosis diagnoses in pediatric populations. Approaches should emphasize strengthening bone development through behavior and lifestyle alongside targeted medical therapies only where clinically indicated. As diagnoses multiply, we must critically monitor for overmedicalization that distresses families while exposing children to poorly tested pharmacological risks absent demonstrable benefit.

To learn more, reading Sayer Ji's article on the topic:

The Manufacturing of Bone Diseases: The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

To learn more about natural ways to support bone health, visit our database on the subject. 

Learn more about the dangers of osteoporosis drugs here.

References

1. WHO Study Group on Assessment of Fracture Risk and its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO study group. World Health Organization; 1994. 

2. Bolland MJ, Grey A. Conflicts of interest and the genesis of osteoporosis diagnostic and screening guidelines. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1369-74.

3. Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, et al. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(11):2520-6.

4. Leslie WD, Morin SN. Osteoporosis epidemiology 2013: implications for diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2014;26(4):440-6.

5. Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, et al. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine in the United States. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(11):2520-6.

6. Khoury MJ. Beyond bone mineral density: hope vs hype. JAMA. 2003 Dec 24;290(24):3165-7.

7. Gafni RI, Baron J. Overdiagnosis of osteoporosis in children due to misinterpretation of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). J Pediatr. 2004 Feb;144(2):253-7. 

8. Crabtree NJ, Arabi A, Bachrach LK, et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry interpretation and reporting in children and adolescents: the revised 2013 ISCD Pediatric Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2014 Jul-Sep;17(3):225-42. 

9. Zemel BS, Kalkwarf HJ, Gilsanz V, et al. Revised reference curves for bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density according to age and sex for black and non-black children: results of the bone mineral density in childhood study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jun;96(6):2160-9.

10. Gafni RI, Baron J. Childhood bone mass acquisition and peak bone mass may not be important determinants of bone mass in late adulthood. Pediatrics. 2007 Dec;119(Supplement 5):S131-6.

11. Crabtree NJ, Arabi A, Bachrach LK, et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry interpretation and reporting in children and adolescents: the revised 2013 ISCD Pediatric Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2014.

12. Prentice A, Parsons TJ, Cole TJ. Uncritical use of bone mineral density in absorptiometry may lead to size-related artifacts in the identification of bone mineral determinants. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;60(6):837-42.

13. Zemel BS, Kalkwarf HJ, Gilsanz V, et al. Revised reference curves for bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density according to age and sex for black and non-black children: results of the bone mineral density in childhood study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jun;96(6):2160-9.

14. Kalkwarf HJ, Zemel BS, Gilsanz V, et al. The bone mineral density in childhood study: bone mineral content and density according to age, sex, and race. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(6):2087-99. 

15. Kroger H, Vainio P, Nieminen J, Kotaniemi A. Comparison of different models for interpreting bone mineral density measurements using DXA and MRI technology. Bone. 1995;17(2):157-9.

16. Bishop N. Characterising bone in children: putting some physiology into paediatric bone densitometry. Arch Dis Child. 2002;87(1):2-5.

17. Baim S, Leonard MB, Bianchi ML, et al. Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD Pediatric Position Development Conference. J Clin Densitom. 2008 Jan-Mar;11(1):6-21. 

18. Gafni RI, Baron J. Overdiagnosis of osteoporosis in children due to misinterpretation of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). J Pediatr. 2004 Feb;144(2):253-7.

19. Simm PJ, Biggin A, Zacharin MR, Rodda CP, Tham E, Siafarikas A. Concordance of patient classification using T-scores and Z-scores of bone mineral density in paediatric patients. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2015;28(5-6):647-50. 

20. Ayyangar R, April MD, Howard KM, Polakof B, Castañeda P, Makris J, et al. Geisinger Health System-Orthopaedic Institute bone densitometry: survey of American academy of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons on current utilization of clinical bone densitometry. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(10):521-5.

21. Clark EM, Gould V, Morrison L, Ades AE, Dieppe P, Tobias JH. Randomized controlled trial of a primary care-based screening program to identify older women with prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fractures: Cohort for Skeletal Health in Bristol and Avon (COSHIBA). J Bone Miner Res. 2012 Mar;27(3):664-71. 

22. Gafni RI, McCarthy EF, Wren TA, et al. DXA interpretations and reporting in children vary significantly between academic pediatric centers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Apr;97(4):1067-74. 

23. Crabtree N, Shaw N, Bishop N, et al. Amalgamated Reference Data for Size-Adjusted Bone Densitometry Measurements in 3598 Children and Young Adults-the ALPHABET Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Jan;32(1):172-80.

24. Bishop N, Arundel P, Clark E, et al. Fracture prediction and the definition of osteoporosis in children and adolescents: the ISCD 2013 Pediatric Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17(2):275-80.

25. Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. The Lancet. 2002 Jun 1;359(9321):1929-36.

26. Schuit SC, van der Klift M, Weel AE, et al. Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone. 2004;34(1):195-202.

27. Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, et al. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine in the United States. J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Nov;29(11):2520-6.

28. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Concordance in elderly twins: heritability and validity of self‐reported medical history. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2010 Oct;13(5):393-8.

29. Bolland MJ, Grey A. Conflicts of interest and the genesis of osteoporosis diagnostic and screening guidelines. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1369-74.

30. Edwards BJ, Langman CB, Bunta AD, Vicuna M, Favus M. Secondary contributors to bone loss in osteoporosis related hip fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2008 Sep 1;19(9):1431-6.

31. Ebeling PR. Osteoporosis in men. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013 Jul;25(4):542-52. 

32. Moynihan R, Glasziou P, Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Santa J, Godlee F. Winding back the harms of too much medicine. Br Med J. 2013 Jan 29;346:f1271.

33. Niederberger M, Radhika R, Vijayakumar V. Osteoporosis and propaganda: implications for the health care industry in a post-truth world. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021 Sep;19(5):391-8.

34. Abrahamsen B, Eiken P, Eastell R. Subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fractures in patients treated with alendronate: a register-based national cohort study. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(6):1095-102.

35. Khosla S, Burr D, Cauley J, et al. Oral bisphosphonate use and the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw: a case control study of a US commercial claims database. Presented at: European Calcified Tissues Society. Belgium: Brussels; 2007.

36. Briot K, Cortet B, Roux C, et al. 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2012 May 1;79(3):304-13.

37. Marzilli TS, et al. Trends in osteoporosis and low bone mass in children and adolescents with rheumatic conditions 2007-2014. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(1):103–10.

38. Maloof PB, et al. Evaluation of Pediatric Osteoporosis: Reviewing Medical Records for Clinical Context. Hospital Pediatrics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-004399

39. Khosla S, et al. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(10):1479–91.

40. Shane E, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(1):1–23.

41. Papapoulos SE, et al. Five years of denosumab exposure in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: Results from the first two years of the FREEDOM extension. J Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(2):694-701.

42. DiFiori JP, et al. Awareness of bisphosphonate complications among pediatricians. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2014;12(4):532-9.

43. Glaser DL, Kaplan FS. Osteoporosis: Definition and clinical presentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(24 Suppl):12S-16S.