Literature DB >> 17937536

Factors affecting short-term bone density precision assessment and the effect on patient monitoring.

William D Leslie1.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The most widely used procedure for performing a BMD reproducibility assessment (same-technologist with simple repositioning on the same day) systematically underestimates precision error and will lead to over categorization of change in a large fraction of monitored patients.
INTRODUCTION: The most common procedure for establishing the least significant change (LSC) to monitor bone mineral density (BMD) with DXA is for the same technologist to perform repeat subject scans on the same day with simple repositioning. The objective of the current report is to determine how the reproducibility scanning procedure impacts on the precision assessment and categorization of change in routine clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population was drawn from the database of the Manitoba Bone Density Program which includes all clinical DXA test results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. All patients who had baseline and follow up total spine (L1-4) and the total hip BMD measurements on the same instrument up to March 31, 2007 were included as the 'clinical monitoring population' (N = 5048 scan-pairs). BMD precision was assessed in a convenience sample of patients who were agreeable to undergoing a repeat assessment (50% performed on the same day with repositioning, 68% by different technologists) (N = 331 spine and 328 hip scan-pairs).
RESULTS: Precision error was greater when the scan-pairs were acquired on different days than on the same day for both the total spine (p < .001) and total hip (p < .01). No other factor was consistently associated with precision error. The reference LSC (different days and different technologists) categorized the smallest fraction of the monitored population with change, whereas other combinations gave a significant rate of over categorization (up to 19.3% for the lumbar spine and up to 18.3% for the total hip).
CONCLUSIONS: The most widely procedure for performing a BMD reproducibility assessment (same-technologist with simple repositioning on the same day) systematically underestimates precision error and will lead to over categorization of change in a large fraction of monitored patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17937536     DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.071019

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


  8 in total

1.  The effect of weight and weight change on the long-term precision of spine and hip DXA measurements.

Authors:  R Rajamanohara; J Robinson; J Rymer; R Patel; I Fogelman; G M Blake
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Factors affecting short-term precision of musculoskeletal measures using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT).

Authors:  R R Swinford; S J Warden
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  A Trimodality Comparison of Volumetric Bone Imaging Technologies. Part II: 1-Yr Change, Long-Term Precision, and Least Significant Change.

Authors:  Andy K O Wong; Karen A Beattie; Kevin K H Min; Zamir Merali; Colin E Webber; Christopher L Gordon; Alexandra Papaioannou; Angela M W Cheung; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Comparison of novel DXA system, Shimazu SONIALVISION G4, with GE-Lunar PRODIGY.

Authors:  Toki Takemoto; Takeshi Oguchi; Koji Oda
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Which is the preferred site for bone mineral density monitoring as an indicator of treatment-related anti-fracture effect in routine clinical practice? A registry-based cohort study.

Authors:  W D Leslie; P Martineau; M Bryanton; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry of the distal femur may be more reliable than the proximal tibia in spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Leslie R Morse; Antonio A Lazzari; Ricardo Battaglino; Kelly L Stolzmann; Kirby R Matthess; David R Gagnon; Samuel A Davis; Eric Garshick
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Fracture prediction from repeat BMD measurements in clinical practice.

Authors:  W D Leslie; S L Brennan-Olsen; S N Morin; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  New Horizons for Hydroxyapatite Supported by DXA Assessment-A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Jakub Litak; Cezary Grochowski; Andrzej Rysak; Marek Mazurek; Tomasz Blicharski; Piotr Kamieniak; Piotr Wolszczak; Mansur Rahnama-Hezavah; Grzegorz Litak
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 3.623

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.