Literature DB >> 25428701

Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Carmelo Messina1, Michele Bandirali, Luca Maria Sconfienza, Nathascja Katia D'Alonzo, Giovanni Di Leo, Giacomo Davide Edoardo Papini, Fabio Massimo Ulivieri, Francesco Sardanelli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Pitfalls in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) are common. Our aim was to assess rate and type of errors in DXA examinations/reports, evaluating a consecutive series of DXA images of patients examined elsewhere and later presenting to our institution for a follow-up DXA.
METHODS: After ethics committee approval, a radiologist retrospectively reviewed all DXA images provided by patients presenting at our institution for a new DXA. Errors were categorized as patient positioning (PP), data analysis (DA), artefacts and/or demographics.
RESULTS: Of 2,476 patients, 1,198 had no previous DXA, while 793 had a previous DXA performed in our institution. The remaining 485 (20 %) patients entered the study (38 men and 447 women; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years). Previous DXA examinations were performed at a total of 37 centres. Of 485 reports, 451 (93 %) had at least one error out of a total of 558 errors distributed as follows: 441 (79 %) were DA, 66 (12 %) PP, 39 (7 %) artefacts and 12 (2 %) demographics.
CONCLUSIONS: About 20 % of patients did not undergo DXA at the same institution as previously. More than 90 % of DXA presented at least one error, mainly of DA. International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines are very poorly adopted. KEY POINTS: • More than 90 % of DXA examinations/reports presented one or more errors. • About 80 % of errors are related to image data analysis. • Errors in DXA examinations may have potential implications for patients' management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25428701     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3509-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

1.  In vivo differences among scan modes in bone mineral density measurement at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

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

2.  Differences among array, fast array, and high-definition scan modes in bone mineral density measurement at dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry on a phantom.

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

Review 3.  Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Uncritical use of bone mineral density in absorptiometry may lead to size-related artifacts in the identification of bone mineral determinants.

Authors:  A Prentice; T J Parsons; T J Cole
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Discrepancies in pediatric bone mineral density reference data: potential for misdiagnosis of osteopenia.

Authors:  M B Leonard; K J Propert; B S Zemel; V A Stallings; H I Feldman
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 6.  Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements of bone density and body composition: promise and pitfalls.

Authors:  L K Bachrach
Journal:  J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.634

Review 7.  Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Authors:  Nelson B Watts
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Overdiagnosis of osteoporosis in children due to misinterpretation of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

Authors:  Rachel I Gafni; Jeffrey Baron
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.406

9.  European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  J A Kanis; E V McCloskey; H Johansson; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; J-Y Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Effect of leg rotation on hip bone mineral density measurements.

Authors:  Sarath Lekamwasam; Robolge Sumith Janaka Lenora
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights.

Authors:  Domenico Albano; Carmelo Messina; Jacopo Vitale; Luca Maria Sconfienza
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis by routine CT in Southern Europe.

Authors:  Elena Alacreu; David Moratal; Estanislao Arana
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck.

Authors:  M Di Paola; D Gatti; O Viapiana; L Cianferotti; L Cavalli; C Caffarelli; F Conversano; E Quarta; P Pisani; G Girasole; A Giusti; M Manfredini; G Arioli; M Matucci-Cerinic; G Bianchi; R Nuti; S Gonnelli; M L Brandi; M Muratore; M Rossini
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Evaluation of the bone mineral density in the Mexican female population using the Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology.

Authors:  Rosales-Ortiz Sergio; Rivera García Elaín Nayelli
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanner mismatch in follow-up bone mineral density testing.

Authors:  K Lee; K Al Jumaily; M Lin; K Siminoski; C Ye
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 5.071

Review 6.  Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review.

Authors:  Carmelo Messina; Gabriele Maffi; Jacopo Antonino Vitale; Fabio Massimo Ulivieri; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Luca Maria Sconfienza
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-02

Review 7.  New perspectives in echographic diagnosis of osteoporosis on hip and spine.

Authors:  Sergio Casciaro; Francesco Conversano; Paola Pisani; Maurizio Muratore
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2015-10-26

8.  Bone densitometry worldwide: a global survey by the ISCD and IOF.

Authors:  M A Clynes; L D Westbury; E M Dennison; J A Kanis; M K Javaid; N C Harvey; M Fujita; C Cooper; W D Leslie; C R Shuhart
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Nanotechnology for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Authors:  Chunxia Gao; Donglei Wei; Huilin Yang; Tao Chen; Lei Yang
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2015-08-13

10.  A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative.

Authors:  Carmelo Messina; Bianca Bignotti; Alberto Bazzocchi; Catherine M Phan; Alberto Tagliafico; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Francesco Sardanelli; Luca Maria Sconfienza
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-04-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.