Literature DB >> 14514988

Comparison of pencil-beam and fan-beam DXA systems.

Sarah Henzell1, Satvinder S Dhaliwal, Roger I Price, Faye Gill, Chandra Ventouras, Carmel Green, Fatima Da Fonseca, Marianne Holzherr, Richard Prince.   

Abstract

Patients attending a routine bone densitometry clinic were scanned on two different densitometers on the same day using a pencil-beam (Hologic QDR1000W) and fan-beam (Hologic QDR4500W) machine. Subjects were scanned at the lumbar spine site and or the proximal femur. The differences in bone mineral density (BMD) between the fan-beam and pencil-beam (QDR4500W-QDR1000W) were determined for all pairs of scans. The mean difference in BMD was also calculated to see if there was a systematic bias between the machines. The mean difference in BMD was -8 mg/cm2 and 25 mg/cm2 at the spine and total hip, respectively. The individual differences in BMD between the two machines were examined to assess if they were significantly greater than measurement error. The percentage of scans classified as significantly different was calculated for the difference in BMD before and after adjusting for the mean difference in BMD. The percentage of individuals classified as significantly different ranged from 17.1-45.0% before adjustment, at the spine and total hip, respectively, and 16.1-22.6% after adjustment. From a clinical perspective, this degree of misclassification is probably unacceptable. These results suggest that scans obtained from a QDR4500W fan-beam system and QDR1000W pencil-beam system should not be compared, with or without adjustment for systematic bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14514988     DOI: 10.1385/jcd:6:3:205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.963


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Absorptiometry].

Authors:  S Prevrhal
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.635

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.  Does standardized BMD still remove differences between Hologic and GE-Lunar state-of-the-art DXA systems?

Authors:  B Fan; Y Lu; H Genant; T Fuerst; J Shepherd
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  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

5.  New reference data on bone mineral density and the prevalence of osteoporosis in Korean adults aged 50 years or older: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2010.

Authors:  Kyung-Shik Lee; Su-Hyun Bae; Seung Hwa Lee; Jungun Lee; Dong Ryul Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Cross-calibration of pencil-beam (DPX-NT) and fan-beam (QDR-4500C) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for sarcopenia.

Authors:  Kenyu Ito; Kazuyo Tsushita; Akiko Muramoto; Hiroki Kanzaki; Takashi Nohara; Hitomi Shimizu; Tomoko Nakazawa; Atsushi Harada
Journal:  Nagoya J Med Sci       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.131

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.