Literature DB >> 7655178

European semi-anthropomorphic spine phantom for the calibration of bone densitometers: assessment of precision, stability and accuracy. The European Quantitation of Osteoporosis Study Group.

J Pearson1, J Dequeker, M Henley, J Bright, J Reeve, W Kalender, A M Laval-Jeantet, P Rüegsegger, D Felsenberg, J Adams.   

Abstract

Up to now it has not been possible to reliably cross-calibrate dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) densitometry equipment made by different manufacturers so that a measurement made on an individual subject can be expressed in the units used with a different type of machine. Manufacturers have adopted various procedures for edge detection and calibration, producing various normal ranges which are specific to each individual manufacturer's brand of machine. In this study we have used the recently described European Spine Phantom (ESP, prototype version), which contains three semi-anthropomorphic "vertebrae" of different densities made of stimulated cortical and trabecular bone, to calibrate a range of DXA densitometers and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) equipment used in the measurement of trabecular bone density of the lumbar vertebrae. Three brands of QCT equipment and three brands of DXA equipment were assessed. Repeat measurements were made to assess machine stability. With the large majority of machines which proved stable, mean values were obtained for the measured low, medium and high density vertebrae respectively. In the case of the QCT equipment these means were for the trabecular bone density, and in the case of the DXA equipment for vertebral body bone density in the posteroanterior projection. All DXA machines overestimated the projected area of the vertebral bodies by incorporating variable amounts of transverse process. In general, the QCT equipment gave measured values which were close to the specified values for trabecular density, but there were substantial differences from the specified values in the results provided by the three DXA brands. For the QCT and Norland DXA machines (posteroanterior view), the relationships between specified densities and observed densities were found to be linear, whereas for the other DXA equipment (posteroanterior view), slightly curvilinear, exponential fits were found to be necessary to fit the plots of observed versus specified densities. From these plots, individual calibration equations were derived for each machine studied. For optimal cross-calibration, it was found to be necessary to use an individual calibration equation for each machine. This study has shown that it is possible to cross-calibrate DXA as well as QCT equipment for the measurement of axial bone density. This will be of considerable benefit for large-scale epidemiological studies as well as for multi-site clinical studies depending on bone densitometry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7655178     DOI: 10.1007/bf02106097

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


  27 in total

1.  Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual X-ray absorptiometry: comparison of lunar and hologic instruments.

Authors:  N A Pocock; P N Sambrook; T Nguyen; P Kelly; J Freund; J A Eisman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Compact and trabecular components of the spine using quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  T Sandor; D Felsenberg; W A Kalender; A Clain; E Brown
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  A phantom for standardization and quality control in spinal bone mineral measurements by QCT and DXA: design considerations and specifications.

Authors:  W A Kalender
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Bone mass measurement by DXA: influence of analysis procedures and interunit variation.

Authors:  C Trevisan; G G Gandolini; P Sibilla; M Penotti; M P Caraceni; S Ortolani
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Calibration and standardization of bone mineral densitometers.

Authors:  T L Kelly; D M Slovik; R M Neer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Calibration of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for bone density.

Authors:  R B Mazess; J A Trempe; J P Bisek; J A Hanson; D Hans
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M L Brown; R L Morin; B L Riggs
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Some problems of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the clinical use.

Authors:  R Morita; H Orimo; I Yamamoto; M Fukunaga; M Shiraki; T Nakamura; T Fujita; T Inoue; K Kaneda; A Tomita
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  T L Kelly; D M Slovik; D A Schoenfeld; R M Neer
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 5.958

10.  A new set of calibration standards for estimating the fat and mineral content of vertebrae via dual energy QCT.

Authors:  M M Goodsitt; R H Johnson; C H Chesnut
Journal:  Bone Miner       Date:  1991-06
View more
  23 in total

1.  Bone mineral density measures in longitudinal studies: the choice of phantom is crucial for quality assessment. The Tromsø study, a population-based study.

Authors:  Nina Emaus; G K R Berntsen; R Joakimsen; V Fønnebø
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Population-based geographic variations in DXA bone density in Europe: the EVOS Study. European Vertebral Osteoporosis.

Authors:  M Lunt; D Felsenberg; J Adams; L Benevolenskaya; J Cannata; J Dequeker; C Dodenhof; J A Falch; O Johnell; K T Khaw; P Masaryk; H Pols; G Poor; D Reid; C Scheidt-Nave; K Weber; A J Silman; J Reeve
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  The effects of standardization and reference values on patient classification for spine and femur dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  A Simmons; D E Simpson; M J O'Doherty; S Barrington; A J Coakley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  The effect of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on bone mineral density: results from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  J B Richards; L Joseph; K Schwartzman; N Kreiger; A Tenenhouse; D Goltzman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The European spine phantom: reply to Dr Peter Tothill's letter.

Authors:  J Reeve; M Lunt; W Kalender; J Dequeker; I Jajic; R Lorenc; H Pols; G Poor; J Stepan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Cross-calibration of DXA scanners for spine measurements.

Authors:  P Tothill
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Evaluation of the European Spine Phantom in a multi-centre clinical trial.

Authors:  B Lees; S W Garland; C Walton; J C Stevenson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Epidemiology of Osteoporotic Fractures in Europe: towards biologic mechanisms. The European Prospective Osteoporosis Study Group.

Authors:  J Reeve; A Silman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  The European Prospective Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  J Reeve
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Depressive symptomatology and fracture risk in community-dwelling older men and women.

Authors:  Heather E Whitson; Linda Sanders; Carl F Pieper; Deborah T Gold; Alexandra Papaioannou; J Brent Richards; Jonathan D Adachi; Kenneth W Lyles
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.636

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.