Literature DB >> 8400603

Quality assurance for bone densitometry research studies: concept and impact.

C C Glüer1, K G Faulkner, M J Estilo, K Engelke, J Rosin, H K Genant.   

Abstract

A concept for quality assurance (QA) in bone densitometry has been developed for clinical multicenter studies. Major elements provided by a coordinating center comprise (1) consulting services and certification of participating centers in the start-up phase of the study, (2) review of scan data acquired on QA standards for cross-calibration and longitudinal assessment of scanner stability, (3) review of selected patient data as well as of problem cases during the study, and (4) comprehensive review and correction of patient results based on QA data after conclusion of the study. Limitations of phantom-based QA data should be acknowledged. Typical problems encountered during research studies and guidelines for solutions are presented. Successful implementation of QA measures may yield substantial enhancement of statistical power. Depending on the study design and the variability of response within patient groups, improvement in precision due to QA measures may reduce the smallest detectable difference between subject groups or, alternatively, sample size by a few to more than 50%, and thus may contribute to a substantial reduction in study cost. Formulae for calculation of the magnitude of these effects are presented. To maximize the net benefit, QA efforts have to be limited to levels that assure reliability of the data at acceptable QA cost. While QA programs at individual clinical sites or for local practitioners may not need to be as extensive as for multicenter clinical trials, awareness of the potential problems and implementation of basic QA measures will help in obtaining high-quality bone densitometry results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8400603     DOI: 10.1007/bf01623825

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


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  P values and their problems.

Authors:  W K Ramp; J M Yancey
Journal:  Bone Miner       Date:  1991-05

3.  Longitudinal precision of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. The Nafarelin/Bone Study Group.

Authors:  E S Orwoll; S K Oviatt
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Nasal calcitonin for treatment of established osteoporosis.

Authors:  K Overgaard; B J Riis; C Christiansen; J Pødenphant; J S Johansen
Journal:  Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 3.478

5.  Dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: clinical experience with two different systems.

Authors:  C R Gundry; C W Miller; E Ramos; A Moscona; J A Stein; R B Mazess; D J Sartoris; D Resnick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  The power to detect differences in average rates of change in longitudinal studies.

Authors:  J J Lefante
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  Measurements of bone mass and bone density.

Authors:  H W Wahner
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 4.741

8.  Planning a longitudinal study. II. Frequency of measurement and study duration.

Authors:  J J Schlesselman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1973-09

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

Review 10.  Osteoporosis. Current techniques and recent developments in quantitative bone densitometry.

Authors:  P Lang; P Steiger; K Faulkner; C Glüer; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 2.303

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Current methods and advances in bone densitometry.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; C C Gluer; S Majumdar; B A Blunt; H K Genant
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Long-term quality control of DXA: a comparison of Shewhart rules and Cusum charts.

Authors:  D Pearson; S A Cawte
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  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

5.  A longitudinal study of supine lateral DXA of the lumbar spine: a comparison with posteroanterior spine, hip and total-body DXA.

Authors:  G M Blake; R J Herd; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials.

Authors:  K G Faulkner; M R McClung
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Quality assurance for bone densitometry research studies.

Authors:  C A Bassett
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.507

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

Authors:  J Pearson; J Dequeker; M Henley; J Bright; J Reeve; W Kalender; A M Laval-Jeantet; P Rüegsegger; D Felsenberg; J Adams
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Determinants of bone mineral density in immobilization: a study on hemiplegic patients.

Authors:  A del Puente; N Pappone; M G Mandes; D Mantova; R Scarpa; P Oriente
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Differences in precision in bone mineral density measured by SXA and DXA: the NOREPOS study.

Authors:  Lisa Forsén; Gro K Rosvold Berntsen; Haakon E Meyer; Grethe S Tell; Vinjar Fønnebø
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 8.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.