Literature DB >> 10501774

Accuracy and precision of 62 bone densitometers using a European Spine Phantom.

S Kolta1, P Ravaud, J Fechtenbaum, M Dougados, C Roux.   

Abstract

Dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used for bone mineral density measurements. Different types of devices are available. Differences between devices from either the same manufacturer or different manufacturers can lead to difficulties in clinical practice when patients are followed on different machines. We calculated the accuracy and precision of 62 DXA devices from two manufacturers (51 Hologic, 11 Lunar) using a European Spine Phantom (ESP, semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each device without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd), using the root mean square average. The limits of agreement were estimated from the differences between each replicate measurement of BMD and the estimated true value for a particular manufacturer, according to Bland and Altman. The results confirm the difference between devices from different manufacturers (18.5%). Mean CVsd values were 0.57% and 0.64% for Hologic and Lunar respectively. The limits of agreement among devices from the same manufacturer were 0.026 g/cm(2) and 0.025 g/cm(2) for Hologic and Lunar respectively. Differences in extreme results between devices from the same manufacturer were on average 5.4% and 3.6% for Hologic and Lunar respectively. Results of different devices from the same manufacturer are highly comparable, although unpredictable differences exist that may be clinically relevant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10501774     DOI: 10.1007/s001980050188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  11 in total

1.  Body mass index and bone loss among postmenopausal women: the 10-year follow-up of the OSTPRE cohort.

Authors:  Jarmo Saarelainen; Vesa Kiviniemi; Heikki Kröger; Marjo Tuppurainen; Leo Niskanen; Jukka Jurvelin; Risto Honkanen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 2.626

2.  Bone mineral density measures in longitudinal studies: the choice of phantom is crucial for quality assessment. The Tromsø study, a population-based study.

Authors:  Nina Emaus; G K R Berntsen; R Joakimsen; V Fønnebø
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Optimal monitoring time interval between DXA measures in children.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Li Wang; Bo Fan; Vicente Gilsanz; Heide J Kalkwarf; Joan Lappe; Ying Lu; Thomas Hangartner; Babette S Zemel; Margaret Fredrick; Sharon Oberfield; Karen K Winer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries.

Authors:  Ae Ja Park; Jee-Hye Choi; Hyun Kang; Ki Jeong Park; Ha Young Kim; Seo Hwa Kim; Deog-Yoon Kim; Seung-Hwan Park; Yong-Chan Ha
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2015-05-31

5.  Bone mineral density in patients with recently diagnosed, active rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  M Güler-Yüksel; J Bijsterbosch; Y P M Goekoop-Ruiterman; J K de Vries-Bouwstra; H K Ronday; A J Peeters; J M de Jonge-Bok; F C Breedveld; B A C Dijkmans; C F Allaart; W F Lems
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-04-24       Impact factor: 19.103

6.  Femoral and whole-body bone mineral density in middle-aged and older Norwegian men and women: suitability of the reference values.

Authors:  Clara Gram Gjesdal; Sylvi J Aanderud; Hans-Jacob Haga; Johan G Brun; Grethe S Tell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Regional differences in hip bone mineral density levels in Norway: the NOREPOS study.

Authors:  T K Omsland; C G Gjesdal; N Emaus; G S Tell; H E Meyer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Quantifying Pelvic Periprosthetic Bone Remodeling Using Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Region-Free Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew M Parker; Lang Yang; Mohsen Farzi; José M Pozo; Alejandro F Frangi; J Mark Wilkinson
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 2.617

9.  Measurement Uncertainty in Spine Bone Mineral Density by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry.

Authors:  Ae-Ja Park; Jun-Il Yoo; Jee-Hye Choi; Kyun Shik Chae; Chang Geun Kim; Dal Sik Kim
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2017-05-31

10.  Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students.

Authors:  Petr Kutáč; Václav Bunc; Martin Sigmund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.