Literature DB >> 35614236

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

K Lee1,2, K Al Jumaily2, M Lin3, K Siminoski4, C Ye5.   

Abstract

Scanner mismatch occurs frequently with follow-up dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Nearly one-in-five follow-up DXA scans were conducted on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) and more than a quarter of patients who had a follow-up DXA scan had experienced scanner mismatch.
INTRODUCTION: Detecting significant changes in bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners relies on the least significant change (LSC). Results from two different DXA scanners can only be compared, albeit with decreased sensitivity for change, if the LSC between the two scanners has been directly determined through cross-calibration. Performing follow-up DXA scans on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) has safety and economic implications. This study aims to determine the proportion of scanner mismatch occurring at a population level.
METHODS: All patients who completed at least two DXA scans between 1 April 2009 and 31 December 2018 in the province of Alberta, Canada, were identified using population-based health services databases. Scanner mismatch was defined as a follow-up DXA scan completed on a DXA scanner that differed from and was not cross-calibrated to the previous DXA scanner. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess predictive factors that may contribute to scanner mismatch.
RESULTS: A total of 264,866 patients with 470,641 follow-up DXA scans were identified. Scanner mismatch occurred in 18.9% of follow-up DXA scans; 28.7% of patients experienced at least one scanner mismatch. Longer duration between scans (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.24-1.26) and major osteoporotic fracture history before index scan (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) increased risk of scanner mismatch. Osteoporosis medication use before index scan (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.88-0.91), recency of follow-up scans (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-0.98), female sex (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00), and age at last scan (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00) were associated with lower risk of scanner mismatch.
CONCLUSION: Scanner mismatch is a common problem, occurring in one-in-five follow-up DXA scans and affecting more than a quarter of patients. Interventions to reduce this large proportion of scanner mismatch are necessary.
© 2022. International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DXA; Fracture risk assessment; General population studies; Osteoporosis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35614236     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06438-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   5.071


  8 in total

1.  The magnitude and challenge of false-positive newborn screening test results.

Authors:  C Kwon; P M Farrell
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2000-07

2.  Comparing BMD results between two similar DXA systems using the generalized least significant change.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Sarah L Morgan; Ying Lu
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 3.  Monitoring of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement in clinical practice.

Authors:  Abdellah El Maghraoui; Lahsen Achemlal; Ahmed Bezza
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2006-05-19       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 4.  Cross-calibration, Least Significant Change and Quality Assurance in Multiple Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scanner Environments: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

Authors:  Lawrence G Jankowski; Sarah Warner; Ken Gaither; Leon Lenchik; Bo Fan; Ying Lu; John Shepherd
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2019-09-07       Impact factor: 2.617

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

Authors:  Carmelo Messina; Michele Bandirali; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Nathascja Katia D'Alonzo; Giovanni Di Leo; Giacomo Davide Edoardo Papini; Fabio Massimo Ulivieri; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Psychosocial consequences of false-positive newborn screens for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Audrey Tluczek; Kate Murphy Orland; Laura Cavanagh
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2010-09-17

7.  Cross-Calibrated Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scanners Demonstrate Systematic Bias in Pediatric and Young Adult Females.

Authors:  Jodi N Dowthwaite; Kristen A Dunsmore; Dongliang Wang; Paula F Rosenbaum; Tamara A Scerpella
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.617

8.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.