Literature DB >> 11095175

Follow-up of individual patients on two DXA scanners of the same manufacturer.

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

Abstract

Measuring and monitoring changes in bone mineral density (BMD) is usually done by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Replacement of old devices is becoming increasingly frequent. To cross-calibrate two Hologic devices, a QDR 1000 and a QDR 4500A, we measured three phantoms - a Hologic spine phantom, a Hologic block phantom (without and with subregions analysis) and a European Spine Phantom - 20 times each without repositioning on both devices. The mean difference between BMD obtained on the two devices was 0.003, 0.033, 0.051 and -0.045 g/cm2 respectively. We also measured the spine and hip of 60 women aged 19-78 years twice on the same day on both devices. Another group of 30 women aged 52-83 years were measured twice on the QDR 4500 A device (15 days apart). We analyzed the data using Pearson's correlation coefficient, and Bland and Altman's method, and calculated the smallest detectable difference (SDD). Results on the two devices were highly correlated: r2 = 0.99, 0.95, 0.96 for spine, femoral neck and total hip BMD respectively. SDD was higher for scans done on different devices than for those done twice on the same device: the SDDs were 0.048, 0.046 and 0.047 g/cm2 for spine, femoral neck and total hip BMD respectively measured on two different devices, while the equivalent values were 0.034, 0.036 and 0.027 g/cm2 using a single device. The difference in BMD results was not dependent on BMD. Our results suggest that, although devices are properly cross-calibrated, differences among them great enough to be clinically relevant can be observed in vivo.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11095175     DOI: 10.1007/s001980070070

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


  7 in total

1.  Bone geometry profiles in women with and without SLE.

Authors:  Jimmy D Alele; Diane L Kamen; Kelly J Hunt; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Changes in femur neck bone density in US adults between 1988-1994 and 2005-2008: demographic patterns and possible determinants.

Authors:  A C Looker; L J Melton; L G Borrud; J A Shepherd
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Bone Mineral Density: Observational Study of 110 Patients Followed up in a Specialized Center for the Treatment of Obesity in France.

Authors:  Marion Geoffroy; Isabelle Charlot-Lambrecht; Jan Chrusciel; Isabelle Gaubil-Kaladjian; Ana Diaz-Cives; Jean-Paul Eschard; Jean-Hugues Salmon
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 4.  2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada.

Authors:  Jacques P Brown; Robert G Josse
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-11-12       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Effects of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on Bone Mineral Density and Bone Metabolism in Chinese Patients with Obesity.

Authors:  Xi Chen; Chunlan Zhang; Jingping Li; Wei Liu; Jingjing Zhang; Zhiguang Zhou
Journal:  Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 3.168

6.  Prevalence and trends in low femur bone density among older US adults: NHANES 2005-2006 compared with NHANES III.

Authors:  Anne C Looker; L Joseph Melton; Tamara B Harris; Lori G Borrud; John A Shepherd
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Added value of trabecular bone score over bone mineral density for identification of vertebral fractures in patients with areal bone mineral density in the non-osteoporotic range.

Authors:  K Nassar; S Paternotte; S Kolta; J Fechtenbaum; C Roux; K Briot
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 4.507

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.