Literature DB >> 7492865

Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques.

C C Glüer1, G Blake, Y Lu, B A Blunt, M Jergas, H K Genant.   

Abstract

Assessment of precision errors in bone mineral densitometry is important for characterization of a technique's ability to detect longitudinal skeletal changes. Short-term and long-term precision errors should be calculated as root-mean-square (RMS) averages of standard deviations of repeated measurements (SD) and standard errors of the estimate of changes in bone density with time (SEE), respectively. Inadequate adjustment for degrees of freedom and use of arithmetic means instead of RMS averages may cause underestimation of true imprecision by up to 41% and 25% (for duplicate measurements), respectively. Calculation of confidence intervals of precision errors based on the number of repeated measurements and the number of subjects assessed serves to characterize limitations of precision error assessments. Provided that precision error are comparable across subjects, examinations with a total of 27 degrees of freedom result in an upper 90% confidence limit of +30% of the mean precision error, a level considered sufficient for characterizing technique imprecision. We recommend three (or four) repeated measurements per individual in a subject group of at least 14 individuals to characterize short-term (or long-term) precision of a technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7492865     DOI: 10.1007/bf01774016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  13 in total

1.  Site-matched calcaneal measurements of broad-band ultrasound attenuation and single X-ray absorptiometry: do they measure different skeletal properties?

Authors:  C C Glüer; M Vahlensieck; K G Faulkner; K Engelke; D Black; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Comparative assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography.

Authors:  C C Glüer; P Steiger; R Selvidge; K Elliesen-Kliefoth; C Hayashi; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Models of spinal trabecular bone loss as determined by quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  J E Block; R Smith; C C Glueer; P Steiger; B Ettinger; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Reference values for trabecular and cortical vertebral bone density in single and dual-energy quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  W A Kalender; D Felsenberg; O Louis; P Lopez; E Klotz; M Osteaux; J Fraga
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  The relationship of peripheral to axial bone density.

Authors:  P Schneider; W Börner; R B Mazess; H Barden
Journal:  Bone Miner       Date:  1988-07

6.  Rates of bone loss in normal women: evidence of accelerated trabecular bone loss after the menopause.

Authors:  L Nilas; C Christiansen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 4.686

7.  Dual energy radiography (DER): a preliminary comparative study.

Authors:  R Pacifici; R Rupich; I Vered; K C Fischer; M Griffin; N Susman; L V Avioli
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Spine and femur BMD by DXA in patients with varying severity spinal osteoporosis.

Authors:  P J Ryan; G M Blake; R Herd; J Parker; I Fogelman
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 4.333

9.  Localization of regional forearm bone loss from high resolution computed tomographic images.

Authors:  P Rüegsegger; E Durand; M A Dambacher
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Spinal bone mineral density measured with quantitative CT: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique.

Authors:  P Steiger; J E Block; S Steiger; A F Heuck; A Friedlander; B Ettinger; S T Harris; C C Glüer; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  304 in total

1.  Non-invasive assessment of autonomic nervous system integrity in able-bodied and spinal cord-injured individuals.

Authors:  S Houtman; B Oeseburg; M T Hopman
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.435

2.  The 2002 Canadian bone densitometry recommendations: take-home messages.

Authors:  Aliya A Khan; Jacques P Brown; David L Kendler; William D Leslie; Brian C Lentle; E Michael Lewiecki; Paul D Miller; R Lawrence Nicholson; Wojciech P Olszynski; Nelson B Watts
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-11-12       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Phantomless calibration of CT scans for measurement of BMD and bone strength-Inter-operator reanalysis precision.

Authors:  David C Lee; Paul F Hoffmann; David L Kopperdahl; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography.

Authors:  Y M Kim; S Demissie; R Eisenberg; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Assessment of the tibia using ultrasonic guided waves in pubertal girls.

Authors:  P Moilanen; P H F Nicholson; T Kärkkäinen; Q Wang; J Timonen; S Cheng
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Intravenous ibandronate in men with osteoporosis: an open pilot study over 2 years.

Authors:  O Lamy; L Sandini; I Pache; S Fatio; J Burnand; P Burckhardt
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.256

7.  Skeletal status in males aged 7-80 years assessed by quantitative ultrasound at the hand phalanges.

Authors:  B Drozdzowska; W Pluskiewicz
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-18       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Which bone densitometry and which skeletal site are clinically useful for monitoring bone mass?

Authors:  Masako Ito; Akifumi Nishida; Jun Kono; Mika Kono; Masataka Uetani; Kuniaki Hayashi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Gender differences in trabecular bone architecture of the distal radius assessed with magnetic resonance imaging and implications for mechanical competence.

Authors:  Martin Hudelmaier; A Kollstedt; E M Lochmüller; V Kuhn; F Eckstein; T M Link
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry on pig carcasses.

Authors:  M Kipper; M Marcoux; I Andretta; C Pomar
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.159

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.