OBJECTIVE: The trabecular bone score (TBS) accounts for the bone microarchitecture and is calculated on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We estimated the reproducibility of the TBS using different scan modes compared to the reproducibility bone mineral density (BMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A spine phantom was used with a Hologic QDR-Discovery A densitometer. For each scan mode [fast array, array, high definition (HD)], 25 scans were automatically performed without phantom repositioning; a further 25 scans were performed with phantom repositioning. For each scan, the TBS was obtained. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was calculated as the ratio between standard deviation and mean; percent least significant change (LSC%) as 2.8 × CoV; reproducibility as the complement to 100 % of LSC%. Differences among scan modes were assessed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Without phantom repositioning, the mean TBS (mm(-1)) was: 1.352 (fast array), 1.321 (array), and 1.360 (HD); with phantom repositioning, it was 1.345, 1.332, and 1.362, respectively. Reproducibility of the TBS without phantom repositioning was 97.7 % (fast array), 98.3 % (array), and 98.2 % (HD); with phantom repositioning, it was 97.9 %, 98.7 %, and 98.4 %, respectively. LSC% was ≤ 2.26 %. Differences among scan modes were all statistically significant (p ≤ 0.019). Reproducibility of BMD was 99.1 % with all scan modes, while LSC% was from 0.86 % to 0.91 %. CONCLUSION: Reproducibility error of the TBS was 2-3-fold higher than that of BMD. Although statistically significant, differences in TBS among scan modes were within the highest LSC%. Thus, the three scan modes can be considered interchangeable.
OBJECTIVE: The trabecular bone score (TBS) accounts for the bone microarchitecture and is calculated on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We estimated the reproducibility of the TBS using different scan modes compared to the reproducibility bone mineral density (BMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A spine phantom was used with a Hologic QDR-Discovery A densitometer. For each scan mode [fast array, array, high definition (HD)], 25 scans were automatically performed without phantom repositioning; a further 25 scans were performed with phantom repositioning. For each scan, the TBS was obtained. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was calculated as the ratio between standard deviation and mean; percent least significant change (LSC%) as 2.8 × CoV; reproducibility as the complement to 100 % of LSC%. Differences among scan modes were assessed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Without phantom repositioning, the mean TBS (mm(-1)) was: 1.352 (fast array), 1.321 (array), and 1.360 (HD); with phantom repositioning, it was 1.345, 1.332, and 1.362, respectively. Reproducibility of the TBS without phantom repositioning was 97.7 % (fast array), 98.3 % (array), and 98.2 % (HD); with phantom repositioning, it was 97.9 %, 98.7 %, and 98.4 %, respectively. LSC% was ≤ 2.26 %. Differences among scan modes were all statistically significant (p ≤ 0.019). Reproducibility of BMD was 99.1 % with all scan modes, while LSC% was from 0.86 % to 0.91 %. CONCLUSION: Reproducibility error of the TBS was 2-3-fold higher than that of BMD. Although statistically significant, differences in TBS among scan modes were within the highest LSC%. Thus, the three scan modes can be considered interchangeable.
Authors: John A Kanis; Frederik Borgstrom; Chris De Laet; Helena Johansson; Olof Johnell; Bengt Jonsson; Anders Oden; Niklas Zethraeus; Bruce Pfleger; Nikolai Khaltaev Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E M Lewiecki; C M Gordon; S Baim; N Binkley; J P Bilezikian; D L Kendler; D B Hans; S Silverman; N J Bishop; M B Leonard; M-L Bianchi; H J Kalkwarf; C B Langman; H Plotkin; F Rauch; B S Zemel Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Michele Bandirali; Luca M Sconfienza; Alberto Aliprandi; Giovanni Di Leo; Daniele Marchelli; Fabio M Ulivieri; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: A Delnevo; M Bandirali; G Di Leo; C Messina; L M Sconfienza; A Aliprandi; F M Ulivieri; F Sardanelli Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Stacey A Wainwright; Lynn M Marshall; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Dennis M Black; Teresa A Hillier; Marc C Hochberg; Molly T Vogt; Eric S Orwoll Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: J A Kanis; D Hans; C Cooper; S Baim; J P Bilezikian; N Binkley; J A Cauley; J E Compston; B Dawson-Hughes; G El-Hajj Fuleihan; H Johansson; W D Leslie; E M Lewiecki; M Luckey; A Oden; S E Papapoulos; C Poiana; R Rizzoli; D A Wahl; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: C Messina; L P Piodi; L Rinaudo; I Emili; F Porro; C Buonomenna; L M Sconfienza; L Vergani; F M Ulivieri Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2019-08-14