Literature DB >> 1627902

An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry.

B Lees1, J C Stevenson.   

Abstract

Dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) is a well-established procedure for measuring bone mineral density (BMD). Recently, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has become available, which has the ability to measure BMD both regionally and in the total body (TB). We have evaluated the in vivo and in vitro precision of a DXA instrument and compared it with a DPA instrument with similar software characteristics. The short-term precision of BMD measurements using DXA was assessed in 65 postmenopausal women who had duplicate scans performed, with repositioning between scans. Precision was 0.9% in the lumbar spine and 1.4% in the femoral neck. The midterm precision of DXA was compared with DPA by scanning 10 volunteers a mean of four times over 24 weeks, on both instruments. The precision of the bone mineral content (BMC) and area measurements was significantly better (P less than 0.05) with DXA than with DPA. Long-term in vitro precision was assessed by scanning an aluminium spine phantom over 42 weeks, and a cadaveric sample over 52 weeks, on both instruments. Precision was similar using the aluminium phantom, but was significantly improved (P less than 0.001) when using DXA for scanning the cadaveric sample. Highly significant correlations (all P less than 0.001) of BMD, BMC and area measurements were observed when 70 volunteers were scanned on both instruments. However, there was a systematic difference in BMD values between the instruments. The precision of TB composition measurements assessed in 16 volunteers, over a 16-week period, were TB BMD 0.65%, TB lean tissue 1.47%, and TB fat tissue 2.73%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1627902     DOI: 10.1007/bf01623822

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


  17 in total

1.  Comparative assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography.

Authors:  C C Glüer; P Steiger; R Selvidge; K Elliesen-Kliefoth; C Hayashi; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for total-body and regional bone-mineral and soft-tissue composition.

Authors:  R B Mazess; H S Barden; J P Bisek; J Hanson
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 7.045

3.  Effect of source strength and attenuation on dual photon absorptiometry.

Authors:  M C DaCosta; M M Luckey; D E Meier; J P Mandeli; M L DeLaney; P H Stritzke; S J Goldsmith
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  A comparison of quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  L Strause; M Bracker; P Saltman; D Sartoris; E Kerr
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Dual energy radiography (DER): a preliminary comparative study.

Authors:  R Pacifici; R Rupich; I Vered; K C Fischer; M Griffin; N Susman; L V Avioli
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M L Brown; R L Morin; B L Riggs
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 7.616

7.  Dual-photon Gd-153 absorptiometry of bone.

Authors:  H W Wahner; W L Dunn; R B Mazess; M Towsley; R Lindsay; L Markhard; D Dempster
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Dual-photon absorptiometry: comparison of bone mineral and soft tissue mass measurements in vivo with established methods.

Authors:  S B Heymsfield; J Wang; S Heshka; J J Kehayias; R N Pierson
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 7.045

9.  Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  T L Kelly; D M Slovik; D A Schoenfeld; R M Neer
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 5.958

10.  Precision of dual photon absorptiometry measurements.

Authors:  A D LeBlanc; H J Evans; C Marsh; V Schneider; P C Johnson; S G Jhingran
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Current methods and advances in bone densitometry.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; C C Gluer; S Majumdar; B A Blunt; H K Genant
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Tarsal and metatarsal bone mineral density measurement using volumetric quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Paul K Commean; Tao Ju; Lu Liu; David R Sinacore; Mary K Hastings; Michael J Mueller
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Changes in bone density in women starting hormone replacement therapy compared with those in women already established on hormone replacement therapy.

Authors:  B Lees; M Pugh; N Siddle; J C Stevenson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Role of oral pamidronate in preventing bone loss in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  B Lees; S W Garland; C Walton; D Ross; M I Whitehead; J C Stevenson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Preliminary evaluation of a new ultrasound bone densitometer.

Authors:  B Lees; J C Stevenson
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  Long-term effects of transdermal and oral hormone replacement therapy on postmenopausal bone loss.

Authors:  T C Hillard; S J Whitcroft; M S Marsh; M C Ellerington; B Lees; M I Whitehead; J C Stevenson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurement in daily practice.

Authors:  M C Lodder; W F Lems; H J Ader; A E Marthinsen; S C C M van Coeverden; P Lips; J C Netelenbos; B A C Dijkmans; J C Roos
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.