M Di Paola1,2, D Gatti3, O Viapiana3, L Cianferotti4, L Cavalli4, C Caffarelli5, F Conversano6, E Quarta7, P Pisani6, G Girasole8, A Giusti8, M Manfredini9, G Arioli9, M Matucci-Cerinic10, G Bianchi8, R Nuti5, S Gonnelli5, M L Brandi4, M Muratore7, M Rossini3. 1. National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Lecce, Italy. m.dipaola@ifc.cnr.it. 2. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica (CNR-IFC), Campus Ecotekne (Ed. A7), via per Monteroni, 73100, Lecce, Italy. m.dipaola@ifc.cnr.it. 3. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Metabolic Bone Diseases Unit, University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy. 5. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. 6. National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Lecce, Italy. 7. O.U. of Rheumatology, "Galateo" Hospital, San Cesario di Lecce ASL-LE, Lecce, Italy. 8. SC Rheumatology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy. 9. Department of Neurosciences and Rehabilitation, "Carlo Poma" Hospital, ASST-Mantova, Mantova, Italy. 10. Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence & SOD Rheumatology AOUC, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
An innovative, non-ionizing technique to diagnose osteoporosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck was evaluated through a multicenter study involving 1914 women. The proposed method showed significant agreement with reference gold standard method and, therefore, a potential for early osteoporosis diagnoses and possibly improved patient management. INTRODUCTION: To assess precision (i.e., short term intra-operator precision) and diagnostic accuracy of an innovative non-ionizing technique, REMS (Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry), in comparison with the clinical gold standard reference DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry), through an observational multicenter clinical study. METHODS: In a multicenter cross-sectional observational study, a total of 1914 postmenopausal women (51-70 years) underwent spinal (n = 1553) and/or femoral (n = 1637) DXA, according to their medical prescription, and echographic scan of the same anatomical sites performed with the REMS approach. All the medical reports (DXA and REMS) were carefully checked to identify possible errors that could have caused inaccurate measurements: erroneous REMS reports were excluded, whereas erroneous DXA reports were re-analyzed where possible and otherwise excluded before assessing REMS accuracy. REMS precision was independently assessed. RESULTS: In the spinal group, quality assessment on medical reports produced the exclusion of 280 patients because of REMS errors and 78 patients because of DXA errors, whereas 296 DXA reports were re-analyzed and corrected. Analogously, in the femoral group there were 205 exclusions for REMS errors, 59 exclusions for DXA errors, and 217 re-analyzed DXA reports. In the resulting dataset (n = 1195 for spine, n = 1373 for femur) REMS outcome showed a good agreement with DXA: the average difference in bone mineral density (BMD, bias ± 2SD) was -0.004 ± 0.088 g/cm2 for spine and - 0.006 ± 0.076 g/cm2 for femur. Linear regression showed also that the two methods were well correlated: standard error of the estimate (SEE) was 5.3% for spine and 5.8% for femur. REMS precision, expressed as RMS-CV, was 0.38% for spine and 0.32% for femur. CONCLUSIONS: The REMS approach can be used for non-ionizing osteoporosis diagnosis directly on lumbar spine and femoral neck with a good level of accuracy and precision. However, a more rigorous operator training is needed to limit the erroneous acquisitions and to ensure the full clinical practicability.
An innovative, non-ionizing technique to diagnose osteoporosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck was evaluated through a multicenter study involving 1914 women. The proposed method showed significant agreement with reference gold standard method and, therefore, a potential for early osteoporosis diagnoses and possibly improved patient management. INTRODUCTION: To assess precision (i.e., short term intra-operator precision) and diagnostic accuracy of an innovative non-ionizing technique, REMS (Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry), in comparison with the clinical gold standard reference DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry), through an observational multicenter clinical study. METHODS: In a multicenter cross-sectional observational study, a total of 1914 postmenopausal women (51-70 years) underwent spinal (n = 1553) and/or femoral (n = 1637) DXA, according to their medical prescription, and echographic scan of the same anatomical sites performed with the REMS approach. All the medical reports (DXA and REMS) were carefully checked to identify possible errors that could have caused inaccurate measurements: erroneous REMS reports were excluded, whereas erroneous DXA reports were re-analyzed where possible and otherwise excluded before assessing REMS accuracy. REMS precision was independently assessed. RESULTS: In the spinal group, quality assessment on medical reports produced the exclusion of 280 patients because of REMS errors and 78 patients because of DXA errors, whereas 296 DXA reports were re-analyzed and corrected. Analogously, in the femoral group there were 205 exclusions for REMS errors, 59 exclusions for DXA errors, and 217 re-analyzed DXA reports. In the resulting dataset (n = 1195 for spine, n = 1373 for femur) REMS outcome showed a good agreement with DXA: the average difference in bone mineral density (BMD, bias ± 2SD) was -0.004 ± 0.088 g/cm2 for spine and - 0.006 ± 0.076 g/cm2 for femur. Linear regression showed also that the two methods were well correlated: standard error of the estimate (SEE) was 5.3% for spine and 5.8% for femur. REMS precision, expressed as RMS-CV, was 0.38% for spine and 0.32% for femur. CONCLUSIONS: The REMS approach can be used for non-ionizing osteoporosis diagnosis directly on lumbar spine and femoral neck with a good level of accuracy and precision. However, a more rigorous operator training is needed to limit the erroneous acquisitions and to ensure the full clinical practicability.
Authors: Didier B Hans; John A Shepherd; Elliott N Schwartz; David M Reid; Glen M Blake; John N Fordham; Thomas Fuerst; Peyman Hadji; Akira Itabashi; Marc-Antoine Krieg; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Thomas J Schnitzer; Nicole Wysocki; Danielle Barkema; James Griffith; Victoria Lent; Meghan Romba; Rachel Welbel; Sheena Bhuva; Bindu Manyam; Sarah Linn Journal: PM R Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Piera Lalli; Claudia Mautino; Chiara Busso; Francesca Bardesono; Marco Di Monaco; Lorenzo Lippi; Marco Invernizzi; Marco Alessandro Minetto Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: O Gómez; A P Talero; M B Zanchetta; M Madeira; C A Moreira; C Campusano; A M Orjuela; S Cerdas P; M P de la Peña-Rodríguez; A A Reza; C Velazco; B Mendoza; L R Uzcátegui; P N Rueda Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Carla Caffarelli; Maria Dea Tomai Pitinca; Antonella Al Refaie; Elena Ceccarelli; Stefano Gonnelli Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.636