Arjan J T Bakkum1, Thomas W J Janssen2, Marijn P Rolf3, Jan C Roos4, Jos Burcksen4, Dirk L Knol5, Sonja de Groot6. 1. Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.j.t.bakkum@vu.nl. 2. Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Physics and Medical Technology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a standardized protocol for measuring proximal tibia and distal femur bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). METHODS: Ten able-bodied individuals (7 males) participated in this study. During one measurement session, the knee of each participant was scanned twice by rater 1 using DXA. Both scans were analyzed twice by rater 1 as well as once by a second rater. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurements (SEMs) and smallest detectable differences (SDDs) were calculated for the outcome measures proximal tibia and distal femur BMD. A decision study was performed to determine the effect of study protocol adjustments (i.e. increasing the number of scan repetitions, or scan analyses by the same rater) on SEM and SDD values. RESULTS: High intra- and inter-rater ICCs (0.97-0.98) were found for both proximal tibia and distal femur BMD. Low SEMs (0.017-0.028 g/cm(2)) and SDDs (0.047-0.077 g/cm(2)) were found, with a slightly better result for proximal tibia BMD. Increasing the number of scan analyses by the same rater did not markedly reduce SEM and SDD values, while increasing the number of scan repetitions did. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal tibia and distal femur BMD can be reliably assessed with this method.
PURPOSE: To assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a standardized protocol for measuring proximal tibia and distal femur bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). METHODS: Ten able-bodied individuals (7 males) participated in this study. During one measurement session, the knee of each participant was scanned twice by rater 1 using DXA. Both scans were analyzed twice by rater 1 as well as once by a second rater. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurements (SEMs) and smallest detectable differences (SDDs) were calculated for the outcome measures proximal tibia and distal femur BMD. A decision study was performed to determine the effect of study protocol adjustments (i.e. increasing the number of scan repetitions, or scan analyses by the same rater) on SEM and SDD values. RESULTS: High intra- and inter-rater ICCs (0.97-0.98) were found for both proximal tibia and distal femur BMD. Low SEMs (0.017-0.028 g/cm(2)) and SDDs (0.047-0.077 g/cm(2)) were found, with a slightly better result for proximal tibia BMD. Increasing the number of scan analyses by the same rater did not markedly reduce SEM and SDD values, while increasing the number of scan repetitions did. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal tibia and distal femur BMD can be reliably assessed with this method.
Authors: C M Cirnigliaro; M J Myslinski; M F La Fountaine; S C Kirshblum; G F Forrest; W A Bauman Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: L Abderhalden; F M Weaver; M Bethel; H Demirtas; S Burns; J Svircev; H Hoenig; K Lyles; S Miskevics; L D Carbone Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Christopher M Cirnigliaro; J Scott Parrott; Mary Jane Myslinski; Pierre Asselin; Alexander T Lombard; Michael F La Fountaine; Steven C Kirshblum; Gail F Forrest; Trevor Dyson-Hudson; Ann M Spungen; William A Bauman Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Jan W van der Scheer; Julia O Totosy de Zepetnek; Cheri Blauwet; Katherine Brooke-Wavell; Terri Graham-Paulson; Amber N Leonard; Nick Webborn; Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N Stewart Pritchard; James M Smoliga; Anh-Dung Nguyen; Micah C Branscomb; David R Sinacore; Jeffrey B Taylor; Kevin R Ford Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.303