Literature DB >> 1414500

Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual X-ray absorptiometry: comparison of lunar and hologic instruments.

N A Pocock1, P N Sambrook, T Nguyen, P Kelly, J Freund, J A Eisman.   

Abstract

Clinical application of techniques for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) requires accurate and precise measurements that can be related to clearly defined normal ranges. In this study we investigated the clinical interpretation of BMD values in a group of individuals measured on the same day with two different dual-energy x-ray densitometers (Lunar DPX and Hologic QDR 1000). The BMD results were analyzed as absolute values in g/cm2 and with respect to young and age-specific normals as defined by each manufacturer. Absolute BMD values measured by the two instruments were highly correlated (lumbar spine r = 0.98, femoral neck r = 0.95; p less than 0.0001). In the lumbar spine, the two instruments assigned almost identical values when expressed as a percentage of age-matched values and as a percentage of young normals, despite a small but systematic difference between the values assigned for the latter index. In the femoral neck, however, there were significant differences in assignments between instruments, expressed both as a percentage of young normal (mean difference 6.2%) and with respect to age-matched values (mean difference 3.3%). In particular, in premenopausal subjects femoral neck values with the Hologic instrument were assigned significantly lower values. This study shows effective comparability between these two instruments for absolute and relative values for the lumbar spine, as well as for absolute values at the femoral neck, but important differences for normality assignments at the femoral neck. These latter differences may produce bias in the "diagnosis" of femoral neck osteoporosis and may have important implications for clinical decision making.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1414500     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650070911

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  20 in total

Review 1.  An update on the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.592

2.  Variations in diagnostic performances of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the northwest of The Netherlands.

Authors:  Klaas P Staal; Jan C Roos; Radu A Manoliu; Piet J Kostense; Paul Lips
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-11-20       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  The tale of the T-score: review and perspective.

Authors:  Kenneth G Faulkner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.

Authors:  Nicola J Crabtree; N J Shaw; C M Boivin; B Oldroyd; J G Truscott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The effects of standardization and reference values on patient classification for spine and femur dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  A Simmons; D E Simpson; M J O'Doherty; S Barrington; A J Coakley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Measurements of bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and proximal femur using lunar prodigy and the new pencil-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  Dongil Choi; Deog-Yoon Kim; Chung Soo Han; Seonwoo Kim; Hae Sook Bok; Wooseong Huh; Jae-Wook Ko; Sung Hwa Hong
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 7.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Critical issues and current challenges in osteoporosis and fracture prevention. An overview of unmet needs.

Authors:  Willem F Lems; Hennie G Raterman
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 5.346

9.  Patient assessment using standardized bone mineral density values and a national reference database: implementing uniform thresholds for the reimbursement of osteoporosis treatments in Belgium.

Authors:  S Boonen; J-M Kaufman; J-Y Reginster; J-P Devogelaer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-01-17       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision.

Authors:  K Lai; M Rencken; B L Drinkwater; C H Chesnut
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.