Literature DB >> 17289322

Standardization of spine and hip BMD measurements in different DXA devices.

Aysegul Ozdemir1, Murat Uçar.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare BMD values of lumbar and hip regions measured in two different DXA scanners in one laboratory, and to investigate the efficiencies of implemented and specifically derived standardization formulas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PA lumbar (L2-L4) and right femoral neck BMD values were obtained in 100 women (aged 26-75), consecutively in GE-Lunar DPX-NT and Hologic QDR 4500 C DXA scanners. Standardization of BMD values obtained in two different DXA devices was done according to the method developed by International DXA Standardization Committee (IDSC), using the European Spine Phantom (ESP) to obtain the specific constant value. Mean corrected standardized BMD (sBMD) values in two scanners have been compared with each other and with the mean reported sBMD values, respectively.
RESULTS: The mean lumbar BMD values were 0.950+/-0.117 g/cm(2) for Hologic and 1.068+/-0.135 g/cm(2) for GE-Lunar (p<0.05); mean corrected sBMD values were 1.035+/-0.128 g/cm(2) for Hologic and 1.035+/-0.131 g/cm(2) for GE-Lunar (p>0.05). The mean femoral neck BMD values were 0.798+/-0.114 g/cm(2) for Hologic and 0.895+/-0.111 g/cm(2) for GE-Lunar (p<0.05); mean corrected sBMD values were 0.869+/-0.124 g/cm(2) for Hologic and 0.867+/-0.108 g/cm(2) for GE-Lunar (p>0.05). The difference between the mean values of BMD and sBMD, both corrected and reported, were statistically important in each scanner (p<0.05). The mean values of corrected and reported sBMD were also statistically different in each scanner (p<0.05; mean standard error in the spine was 1.3 for GE-Lunar and 1.8 for the Hologic device).
CONCLUSION: The originally proposed standardization formulae may not optimally correct for manufacturer, model and device-specific differences. Therefore, use of sBMD is not recommended to compare results of individual patients obtained on scanners of different type and brand. The residual error of reported sBMD, however, is substantially smaller than for manufacturer-specific results, and therefore, reporting standardized results is useful for population studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17289322     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.11.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  The Effect of Region of Interest on Measurement of Bone Mineral Density of the Proximal Femur: Simulation Analysis Using CT Images.

Authors:  Keisuke Uemura; Masaki Takao; Yoshito Otake; Makoto Iwasa; Hidetoshi Hamada; Wataru Ando; Yoshinobu Sato; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 4.000

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.  Geographic variation of bone mineral density and selected risk factors for prediction of incident fracture among Canadians 50 and older.

Authors:  Lisa Langsetmo; David A Hanley; Nancy Kreiger; Sophie A Jamal; Jerilynn Prior; Jonathan D Adachi; K Shawn Davison; Christopher Kovacs; Tassos Anastassiades; Alan Tenenhouse; David Goltzman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Serum Chemerin Levels in relation to Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Density: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Jing He; Ji-Chun Li; Hua Xie; Zhong-Hua Xu; Ya-Wen Sun; Qiao Shan
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.434

6.  Measurement Uncertainty in Spine Bone Mineral Density by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry.

Authors:  Ae-Ja Park; Jun-Il Yoo; Jee-Hye Choi; Kyun Shik Chae; Chang Geun Kim; Dal Sik Kim
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2017-05-31
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.