Literature DB >> 12730766

A technical and clinical evaluation of digital X-ray radiogrammetry.

K A Ward1, J Cotton, J E Adams.   

Abstract

Skeletal assessment by morphometry at peripheral sites (e.g. metacarpal index), although simple to perform and widely available, was limited by poor precision and technical aspects of radiogrammetry. Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) uses the principles of this long-established method but applies more sophisticated methodology to overcome these problems. The aims of this study were to (a) investigate the effects of radiographic technique on bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by DXR, (b) compare DXR to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and single-energy X-ray absorptiometry (SXA) and (c) determine the applicability of DXR in identifying individuals who most appropriately might be referred for axial DXA. Different radiographers performing the radiograph do not adversely affect precision. Precision, unstandardised (CV%) and standardised (sCV%), is good with both double (DF)- and single (SF)-sided emulsion radiographic film, but better with SF (CV% 0.92 vs 1.12 DF; SCV% 1.76 vs 2.93 DF). Repeat analysis precision was determined on SF (CV% 0.24, sCV% 0.55). A significant ( p<0.001), systematic difference was found between BMD measured from DF and SF (mean difference 0.017 g/cm(2)). The overall percentage difference between the methods was 2.98% (range 0.18-5.78%). Correlations between DXR BMD and DXA were moderately good (r=0.56-0.77, p<0.001); with SXA of the forearm they were excellent (r=0.91, p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of DXR for detecting women with osteopaenia or osteoporosis (DXA T-score less than -1; World Health Organisation) was determined at the spine [area under curve (AUC)=0.82, standard error (SE)=0.04], femoral neck (AUC=0.84, SE=0.04) and total hip (AUC=0.84, SE=0.04). Based on femoral neck BMD for detection of osteopaenia, a DXR T-score threshold of -1.05 would be appropriate for detection of patients who might benefit most from axial DXA measurements. The DXR is quick and simple to use, having potential for application in a variety of settings as analysis can be performed in a central unit, with radiographs taken in sites over a wide geographical area. Retrospective analysis may also be performed, e.g. on radiographs taken to monitor rheumatoid arthritis. The technique may also provide a simple, widely available and relatively inexpensive method to assess patients at risk of osteopaenia or osteoporosis, and who most appropriately could be referred for axial DXA. This may be particularly relevant in those who suffer low-trauma fractures and attend accident and emergency or fracture clinics, where investigation for osteoporosis is often overlooked.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12730766     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1386-3

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Controversies in bone mineral density diagnostic classifications.

Authors:  P D Miller
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  MEASURABLE ROENTGENOLOGIC CHANGES IN SOME PERIPHERAL BONES IN SENILE OSTEOPOROSIS.

Authors:  H E MEEMA; S MEEMA
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1963-12       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  The radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis: a new approach.

Authors:  E BARNETT; B E NORDIN
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1960-07       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  The occurrence of cortical bone atrophy in old age and in osteoporosis.

Authors:  H E MEEMA
Journal:  J Can Assoc Radiol       Date:  1962-03

5.  An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Ultrasonic velocity measurements through the calcaneus: which velocity should be measured?

Authors:  C G Miller; R J Herd; T Ramalingam; I Fogelman; G M Blake
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser       Date:  1994

9.  Detection of osteoporosis by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the calcaneus: is the WHO criterion applicable?

Authors:  E M B Pacheco; E J Harrison; K A Ward; M Lunt; J E Adams
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 10.  What are the standards by which bone mass measurement at peripheral skeletal sites should be used in the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

Authors:  Paul D Miller; Christopher F Njeh; Larry G Jankowski; Leon Lenchik
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  An update on the assessment of osteoporosis using radiologic techniques.

Authors:  John Damilakis; Thomas G Maris; Apostolos H Karantanas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Direct X-ray radiogrammetry versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: assessment of bone density in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and growth hormone deficiency.

Authors:  Rick R van Rijn; Annemieke Boot; Rianne Wittenberg; Inge M van der Sluis; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Maarten H Lequin; Sabine M P F de MuinckKeizer-Schrama; Cornelis Van Kuijk
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-01-24

3.  Correlation between hand/wrist and panoramic radiographs in severe secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Authors:  João César Guimarães Henriques; Julio Cezar de Melo Castilho; Reinhilde Jacobs; José Benedito Oliveira Amorim; Rafaela Rangel Rosa; Caio Vinícius Bardi Matai
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-09-16       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Technologies for assessment of bone reflecting bone strength and bone mineral density in elderly women: an update.

Authors:  Alvilde Dhainaut; Mari Hoff; Unni Syversen; Glenn Haugeberg
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2016-02-22

5.  Qualitative Evaluation of Digital Hand X-rays Is Not a Reliable Method to Assess Bone Mineral Density.

Authors:  Andrew J Miller; Christopher Jones; Frederick Liss; Jack Abboudi; William Kirkpatrick; Pedro Beredjiklian
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2017-01

6.  Age-related changes in cortical bone mass: data from a German female cohort.

Authors:  V A Molina Toledo; M Jergas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-10-08       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  The potential of digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) in the assessment of osteopenia in children with chronic inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Joerg Blume; Joachim Boettcher; Gabriele Lehmann; Diana Tuchscherer; Alexander Pfeil; Anika Kramer; Ansgar Malich; Eberhard Kauf; Gert Hein; Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-02-28

8.  Digital radiogrammetry as a new diagnostic tool for estimation of disease-related osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis compared with pQCT.

Authors:  J Böttcher; A Pfeil; B Heinrich; G Lehmann; A Petrovitch; A Hansch; J P Heyne; H J Mentzel; A Malich; G Hein; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 2.631

9.  Evaluation of renal osteodystrophy in the dental clinic by assessment of mandibular and phalangeal cortical indices.

Authors:  Bruna Corrêa Massahud; João César Guimarães Henriques; Reinhilde Jacobs; Rafaela Rangel Rosa; Caio Vinícius Bardi Matai
Journal:  Oral Radiol       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 1.852

10.  Disease activity and severity in early inflammatory arthritis predict hand cortical bone loss.

Authors:  Stephen R Pye; Judith E Adams; Kate A Ward; Diane K Bunn; Deborah P M Symmons; Terence W O'Neill
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 7.580

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.