• Task Forces

    Type Size

    The Society’s task forces work toward providing clarity on clinical issues that will better inform health care providers in the diagnosis and treatment of bone disease. 

    The following task forces are currently active. 

    ASBMR-ORS Task Force on Cell Based Therapies


    • Regis O'Keefe, M.D., Washington University in St. Louis
    • Rocky S. Tuan, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh

    Task Force Charges: 

    1. Make recommendations for provisional case definitions of cell-based therapies, including cell sources and target tissues, so that subsequent studies will report using common language and avoid ambiguity due to the complexity of the cell preparatory steps.
    2. Address the uniqueness of tissue type, anatomical site, (specific location), underlying disease state, host (gender/age) and local environmental status.
    3. Review carefully the current available information, in order to assess what is actually known and what is not known about different cell-based therapies, the cellular sources, and protocols for addressing specific target tissues. Especially, the literature will be reviewed and characterized according to whether the evidence is based on in vitro, ex vivo, in vivo (i.e., animal models), or clinical reports.
    4. Review the available non-invasive diagnostic (e.g., biomarkers) and imaging techniques for characterizing the outcome of cell-based therapies.
    5. Identify the key questions that the scientific community should address and recommend a research agenda to elucidate the best approaches for cell-based therapy.
    6. Establish criteria for assessing potential biological and clinical efficacy and develop guidelines appropriate to the claimed use of each cell-based therapy.

    ASBMR Task Force on the Long Term Safety and Efficacy of Vertebral Augmentation


    • Mary Bouxsein, Ph.D., Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School
    • Peter Ebeling, M.D., FRACP, Monash University

    Task Force Charges:

    1. Conduct systematic literature review, and meta-analysis if appropriate, to address what is currently known and not known about the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation, including reviewing the evidence to assess if vertebral fracture risk is increased after vertebral augmentation.
    2. If deemed necessary, conduct a meta-analysis to access the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation.
    3. Consider the safety and efficacy of other non-pharmacologic treatments for individuals with vertebral fracture, such as: braces and lumbar support corsets, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), exercise programs and compare them to vertebral augmentation.
    4. Identify the key questions and knowledge gaps to offer a research agenda that will determine the long-term safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation, as well as other non-pharmacologic approaches for the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

    View reports from previous ASBMR Task Forces.