OI:First OI Clinical Meeting Held in Baltimore, MD

3/6/2005 - While researchers have made great strides in understanding OI, relatively little progress has been made in terms of actually improving the quality of life for OI patients. On March 6th, 2005 more than 100 experts in the field met in Baltimore to discuss strategies to advance both clinical investigations and improve standards of care for individuals with OI. Attendees spent a day and a half working towards the conference's three goals:

  1. identifying the major medical, rehabilitative and psychosocial concerns facing patients with OI
  2. establishing an agenda for addressing some of these concerns, including proposals for needed research
  3. developing a group of outcome measures to be used across the OI community, including clinicians from all specialties, patients and their advocates

Attendees broke into three groups in order to more efficiently tackle the meetings goals. The first group focused on establishing a more consistent method of evaluating and diagnosing OI, as well as choosing a standard set of data to be collected prior to any treatment. The following reflects their initial findings, subject to revision:

Group One — findings

  1. Medical histories and physical examinations, including dental & standardized anthropometric measures
  2. Standardized radiographs
  3. Fracture history, focusing on fractures that are disproportionate compared to the impact experienced
  4. Biochemical markers in blood and urine
  5. Bone mineral density, including whole body
  6. Nuclear scan for occult fractures
  7. Peripheral computerized tomography of peripheral bones (pQCT)
  8. Bone biopsy where indicated
  9. Skin biopsy or DNA studies

This group also devised a list of outcome parameters to use when evaluating the indications for or effects of treatment.

  1. Fracture rate
  2. Functional status
  3. Chronic pain problems—general vs. regional
  4. Mobility
  5. Bone quality
  6. pQCT
  7. Bone mineral density
  8. Biochemical parameters—NTX, etc.

Group Two

Group II, which was devoted to rehabilitation and physical medicine, worked to develop a functional classification system similar to one that exists for patients with cerebral palsy. The group identified essential “domains” to measure as well as appropriate tests to gauge a patient’s functional level in each domain. We’ve listed a number of these instruments and methods under each domain.

Assessment of Pain

  • Instruments
    • Smiley Face
    • VAS 0-10
    • BPI
    • Acute vs. Chronic pain syndrome
    • Prevalence


Group members first debated the accuracy and validity of strength testing, then identified appropriate instruments for clinicians to use.

  • Instruments
    • MMT
    • Dynamometry
    • Biodex
    • Muscle imaging-ultrasound, MRI

Evaluation of Self-care Abilities

  • Instruments
    • PEDI
    • CHAQ
    • AMPS


  • Instruments
    • MAS
    • GMFM
    • BAMF
    • FAQ


  • Instruments
    • Ergometry
    • Endurance-(appropriate tests must still be developed)

Quality of Life

  • Instruments
    • CHO
    • Peds QL
    • Harter Scales

Obesity, Metabolic Status & Nutrition

  • Instruments
    • BMI


  • Instruments
    • Function Reach
    • GET UP and GO
    • HAP

Alignment and stability
Gait measurement and efficiency
Metabolic cart and imaging studies (CT)

Group Three

The third group recommended utilization of specific research priorities based on comprehensive patient evalutation. Project areas and potential studies include:

  1. General muscleskeletal quality of life
    1. How well do existing measures (PODCI, CHQ, SF-36) work for individuals with OI
    2. Development of new measures or subscores
    3. Impact of pamidronate treatment
  2. Spine condition
    1. Scoliosis
      1. Natural history of untreated scoliosis in OI
        1. Does progression continue?
        2. Is curve size related to pain?
        3. Is curve size related to PFT?
        4. Is curve size related to diminished health?
      2. Outcomes of modern scoliosis surgery
        1. Pain
        2. Curve correction
        3. Postoperative loss of correction
        4. Complications
        5. Comparison with natural history group using CHQ, SF-36, Oswestry, SRS and PODCI
      3. Results of bracing
        1. Does it work in your patient group?
        2. Identifying predictors or bracing results
    2. Basilar Invagination
      1. Best methods for determining prevalence
        1. X-rays—are they inconclusive?
        2. MRI—is it too cumbersome?
        3. CTs—do they involve too much radiation?
        4. Neurological exam
        5. OIF-wide survey of identified BI versus age
      2. Long-term outcome of BI
        1. Without surgery
        2. With surgery
      3. Back Pain
        1. How prevalent is it?
        2. How effective is the use of Pamidronate?
        3. How effective is soft bracing?
  3. Extremities
    1. Does function correlate with upper extremity deformity?
      1. Does correction of the deformity change this?
    2. Does function correlate with lower extremity deformity?
      1. Does correction of the deformity change this?
  4. Craniovertebral Development
    1. Does craniovertebral relationship affect the development of mandible and maxilla?
  5. Biomechanics of Tendons and Ligaments in OI
  6. Biomechanics of vertebra

Appointments & Referrals



Read inspiring stories, news and updates about the Institute's patient care, research, special education, professional training, and community programs.


Resource Finder


A free resource that provides access to information and support for individuals and families living with developmental disabilities.