Literature DB >> 1617493

A comparison of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry systems for spinal bone mineral measurement.

K C Lai1, M M Goodsitt, R Murano, C H Chesnut.   

Abstract

Two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) systems--the Hologic QDR-1000 and the Norland XR-26 bone densitometers--were evaluated in terms of precision, accuracy, linearity of response, X-ray exposure, and correlation of in vivo spinal measurements. In vitro precision and accuracy studies were performed using the Hologic anthropomorphic spine phantom; linearity of response was determined with increasing thicknesses of aluminum slabs and concentrations of Tums E-X in a constant-level water bath. Both systems were comparable in precision, achieving coefficients of variation (CVs) of less than 1% in bone mineral content (BMC, g), bone area (cm2), and bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm2). Both were accurate in their determination of BMC, bone area, and BMD with reference to the Hologic spine phantom. Both systems also showed good BMC and BMD linearity of response. Measured X-ray skin surface exposures for the Hologic and the Norland systems were 3.11 and 3.02 mR, respectively. In vivo spinal measurements (n = 65) on the systems were highly correlated (BMC: r = 0.993, SEE = 1.770 g; area: r = 0.984, SEE = 1.713 cm2; BMD: r = 0.990, SEE = 0.028 g/cm2). In conclusion, both systems are comparable in terms of precision, accuracy, linearity of response, and exposure efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1617493     DOI: 10.1007/bf00296283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int        ISSN: 0171-967X            Impact factor:   4.333


  17 in total

1.  MEASUREMENT OF BONE MINERAL IN VIVO: AN IMPROVED METHOD.

Authors:  J R CAMERON; J SORENSON
Journal:  Science       Date:  1963-10-11       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 2.  Osteoporotic fracture space: an hypothesis.

Authors:  R P Heaney
Journal:  Bone Miner       Date:  1989-04

3.  Calibration and standardization of bone mineral densitometers.

Authors:  T L Kelly; D M Slovik; R M Neer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: clinical experience with two different systems.

Authors:  C R Gundry; C W Miller; E Ramos; A Moscona; J A Stein; R B Mazess; D J Sartoris; D Resnick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerized tomography.

Authors:  R E Alvarez; A Macovski
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  A method for selective tissue and bone visualization using dual energy scanned projection radiography.

Authors:  W R Brody; G Butt; A Hall; A Macovski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1981 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Generalized image combinations in dual KVP digital radiography.

Authors:  L A Lehmann; R E Alvarez; A Macovski; W R Brody; N J Pelc; S J Riederer; A L Hall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1981 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Quantitative bone mineral analysis using dual energy computed tomography.

Authors:  H K Genant; D Boyd
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1977 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  The loss of bone mineral with aging and its relationship to risk of fracture.

Authors:  D M Smith; M R Khairi; C C Johnston
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1975-08       Impact factor: 14.808

10.  Calibration procedure in dual-energy scanning using the basis function technique.

Authors:  C K Wong; H K Huang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1983 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Cross-calibration of DXA scanners for spine measurements.

Authors:  P Tothill
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials.

Authors:  K G Faulkner; M R McClung
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Phantom studies in osteoporosis.

Authors:  M Fischer; B Kempers
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-05

5.  European semi-anthropomorphic spine phantom for the calibration of bone densitometers: assessment of precision, stability and accuracy. The European Quantitation of Osteoporosis Study Group.

Authors:  J Pearson; J Dequeker; M Henley; J Bright; J Reeve; W Kalender; A M Laval-Jeantet; P Rüegsegger; D Felsenberg; J Adams
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Precision of dual X-ray absorptiometry and peripheral computed tomography using mobile densitometry units.

Authors:  M Wapniarz; R Lehmann; O Randerath; S Baedeker; W John; K Klein; B Allolio
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  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

8.  Single X-ray absorptiometry of the forearm: precision, correlation, and reference data.

Authors:  T L Kelly; G Crane; D T Baran
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.333

9.  Factors influencing short-term precision of dual X-ray bone absorptiometry (DXA) of spine and femur.

Authors:  K Engelke; C C Glüer; H K Genant
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  Calcitonin and bisphosphonates treatment in bone loss after liver transplantation.

Authors:  M A Valero; C Loinaz; L Larrodera; M Leon; E Moreno; F Hawkins
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.333

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.