Literature DB >> 20700581

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

R Rajamanohara1, J Robinson, J Rymer, R Patel, I Fogelman, G M Blake.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: We examined the effect of weight and weight change on the long-term precision of spine and hip bone mineral density (BMD) in a group of 64 postmenopausal women studied over a 10-year period. Long-term precision errors were 50% larger than short-term errors. Over the range 50-90-kg weight was associated with a statistically significantly larger precision error when precision was expressed in BMD units, but not when expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV). Weight changes up to 5 kg had little effect on precision.
INTRODUCTION: Reliable knowledge of the precision of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements is important for the interpretation of follow-up dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. In this study, we examined the effect of body weight and change in weight on the long-term precision of spine and hip BMD.
METHODS: The study population was a group of 64 postmenopausal women enrolled in a 16-year trial of tibolone. We analyzed the spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD data acquired over a 10-year period on a Hologic QDR4500A densitometer using linear regression to examine the trend of BMD with time for each subject. Precision was expressed in BMD units (g cm(-2)) (standard error of the estimate, SEE) and also as the coefficient of variation (CV).
RESULTS: The long-term precision errors were in BMD (CV) units: 0.018 g cm(-2) (1.9%) for spine, 0.017 g cm(-2) (2.3%) for femoral neck, and 0.016 g cm(-2) (1.7%) for total hip BMD. An inverse relationship between CV and BMD was found for the spine (P = 0.003) and total hip (P = 0.043) sites, but none between SEE and BMD. For spine BMD, there were statistically significant correlations between SEE and weight (P = 0.025) and body thickness (P = 0.027). For femoral neck BMD, there were correlations between SEE and weight (P = 0.030), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.023) and thickness (P = 0.021), but no correlations for total hip BMD or when precision was expressed as the CV. When study subjects were grouped in quartiles according to weight, the spine BMD SEE increased from 0.014 g cm(-2) for women in the lowest quartile (46-62 kg) to 0.018 g cm(-2) for women in the highest quartile (80-105 kg) (P = 0.008). There was a trend for SEE to be greater in individuals with larger weight changes, although these tended to be the heavier subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: From the study, we were able to come up with the following conclusions: (1) long-term precision errors were 50% larger than short-term errors, (2) over the range 50 to 90 kg (BMI: 20-35 kg m(-2)), body weight had a small but statistically significant effect on precision expressed in BMD units, but not when expressed as the CV, and (3) weight changes up to 5 kg had little effect on precision. More studies of individuals >100 kg are required to fully investigate the dependence of DXA scan precision on weight.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20700581     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1339-6

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


  23 in total

1.  Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques.

Authors:  C C Glüer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Comparing BMD results between two similar DXA systems using the generalized least significant change.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Sarah L Morgan; Ying Lu
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.617

3.  Ten years of treatment with tibolone 2.5 mg daily: effects on bone loss in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  J Rymer; J Robinson; I Fogelman
Journal:  Climacteric       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.005

4.  Long-term precision of DXA scanning assessed over seven years in forty postmenopausal women.

Authors:  R Patel; G M Blake; J Rymer; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  A study of the long-term precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone densitometers and implications for the validity of the least-significant-change calculation.

Authors:  T N Hangartner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-11-30       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Replacing DXA scanners: cross-calibration with phantoms may be misleading.

Authors:  G M Blake
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice.

Authors:  William D Leslie
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK.

Authors:  J Compston; A Cooper; C Cooper; R Francis; J A Kanis; D Marsh; E V McCloskey; D M Reid; P Selby; M Wilkins
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Significant differences in UK and US female bone density reference ranges.

Authors:  E Noon; S Singh; J Cuzick; T D Spector; F M K Williams; M L Frost; A Howell; M Harvie; R Eastell; R E Coleman; I Fogelman; G M Blake
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-01-09       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  An overlying fat panniculus affects femur bone mass measurement.

Authors:  Neil Binkley; Diane Krueger; Nellie Vallarta-Ast
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Bone metabolism in obesity and weight loss.

Authors:  Sue A Shapses; Deeptha Sukumar
Journal:  Annu Rev Nutr       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 11.848

Review 2.  The effects of weight loss approaches on bone mineral density in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  S Soltani; G R Hunter; A Kazemi; S Shab-Bidar
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Cross-Calibrated Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scanners Demonstrate Systematic Bias in Pediatric and Young Adult Females.

Authors:  Jodi N Dowthwaite; Kristen A Dunsmore; Dongliang Wang; Paula F Rosenbaum; Tamara A Scerpella
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Changes in Bone Biomarkers, BMC, and Insulin Resistance Following a 10-Week Whole Body Vibration Exercise Program in Overweight Latino Boys.

Authors:  David N Erceg; Lindsey J Anderson; Chun M Nickles; Christianne J Lane; Marc J Weigensberg; E Todd Schroeder
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  A Digital Model to Simulate Effects of Bone Architecture Variations on Texture at Spatial Resolutions of CT, HR-pQCT, and μCT Scanners.

Authors:  T Lowitz; O Museyko; V Bousson; W A Kalender; J-D Laredo; K Engelke
Journal:  J Med Eng       Date:  2014-05-18

6.  Which measuring site in ankylosing spondylitis is best to detect bone loss and what predicts the decline: results from a 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Anna Deminger; Eva Klingberg; Mattias Lorentzon; Mats Geijer; Jan Göthlin; Martin Hedberg; Eva Rehnberg; Hans Carlsten; Lennart T Jacobsson; Helena Forsblad-d'Elia
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 5.156

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.