Ae Ja Park1, Jee-Hye Choi1, Hyun Kang2, Ki Jeong Park3, Ha Young Kim4, Seo Hwa Kim4, Deog-Yoon Kim5, Seung-Hwan Park6, Yong-Chan Ha6. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Sanbon Medical Center, University of Wonkwang College of Medicine, Iksan, Korea. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP). METHODS: We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd). RESULTS: Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm(2)), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm(2)), and 5% (0.075 g/cm(2)) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.
BACKGROUND: Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP). METHODS: We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd). RESULTS: Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm(2)), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm(2)), and 5% (0.075 g/cm(2)) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone density; Densitometry; Lumbar vertebrae; Reference standards
Authors: H K Genant; C Cooper; G Poor; I Reid; G Ehrlich; J Kanis; B E Nordin; E Barrett-Connor; D Black; J P Bonjour; B Dawson-Hughes; P D Delmas; J Dequeker; S Ragi Eis; C Gennari; O Johnell; C C Johnston; E M Lau; U A Liberman; R Lindsay; T J Martin; B Masri; C A Mautalen; P J Meunier; N Khaltaev Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: H K Genant; S Grampp; C C Glüer; K G Faulkner; M Jergas; K Engelke; S Hagiwara; C Van Kuijk Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 6.741