Literature DB >> 9116387

Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems.

K G Faulkner1, L A Roberts, M R McClung.   

Abstract

Many studies have shown the high correlation between Lunar and Hologic DXA bone mineral density (BMD) measurements despite differences in absolute calibration. However, in clinical practice, raw BMD values (in g/cm2) are not normally used for assessing skeletal status and fracture risk. Instead, the BMD values are expressed in terms of the number of standard deviations above or below the young normal value (commonly referred to as the T-score). If the normative populations of the various systems are consistent, the standard deviation scores should also be consistent. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently established diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis based on T-scores and not BMD. However, few studies have compared the instruments in terms of their standard deviation scores. In this study, we used linear regression to compare T-scores in 83 women at L1-4 and 120 women at the femoral neck obtained on a Lunar DPX and a Hologic QDR-1000/W system. patient BMD and T-score measurements were highly correlated between the two systems (r > 0.95). No clinically significant difference in L1-4 T-scores was seen (less than 0.1 SD). However, linear regression analysis confirmed a systematic difference of 0.9 SD between the femoral neck T-scores. This discrepancy is caused by: (1) differences in the normal populations, and (2) differences in statistical models used to determine the young normal mean and standard deviation. In an attempt to correct the discrepancy, the female young normal mean and standard deviation were recalculated for the femoral neck using published epidemiological data from NHANES and existing DXA cross-calibration equations. The Hologic young normal value (mean +/- SD) was redefined as 0.85 +/- 0.11 g/cm2, while the Lunar value was redefined as 1.00 +/- 0.11 g/cm2. When the femoral neck T-scores for the study population were recalculated on the basis of these new values, the results were equivalent between manufactures, effectively eliminating the discrepancy. However, the revised values should be confirmed by additional measurements in young normal adults.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9116387     DOI: 10.1007/bf01629574

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


  8 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

Review 2.  Consensus development conference: prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Spine and femur densitometry at the menopause: are both sites necessary in the assessment of the risk of osteoporosis?

Authors:  J M Pouilles; F Tremollieres; C Ribot
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 4.  Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  The diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; L J Melton; C Christiansen; C C Johnston; N Khaltaev
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults.

Authors:  A C Looker; H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M S Calvo; T B Harris; S P Heyse; C C Johnston; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision.

Authors:  K Lai; M Rencken; B L Drinkwater; C H Chesnut
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results.

Authors:  H K Genant; S Grampp; C C Glüer; K G Faulkner; M Jergas; K Engelke; S Hagiwara; C Van Kuijk
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 6.741

  8 in total
  34 in total

1.  Transmission of force in the lumbosacral spine during backward falls.

Authors:  Carolyn Van Toen; Meena M Sran; Stephen N Robinovitch; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Variations in morphological and biomechanical indices at the distal radius in subjects with identical BMD.

Authors:  Galateia J Kazakia; Andrew J Burghardt; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  The effect of age and bone mineral density on the absolute, excess, and relative risk of fracture in postmenopausal women aged 50-99: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA).

Authors:  E S Siris; S K Brenneman; E Barrett-Connor; P D Miller; S Sajjan; M L Berger; Y-T Chen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  The tale of the T-score: review and perspective.

Authors:  Kenneth G Faulkner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Comparison of spine and femur reference data in native Chinese women from different regions of China.

Authors:  Xian-Ping Wu; Er-Yuan Liao; Ru-Chun Dai; Peng-Fei Shan; Tuan-Yu Fang; Xiang-Hang Luo; Yin-Zhen Pi; Yebin Jiang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  [Absorptiometry].

Authors:  S Prevrhal
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Establishment of peak bone mineral density in Southern Chinese males and its comparisons with other males from different regions of China.

Authors:  Li-Jun Tan; Shu-Feng Lei; Xiang-Ding Chen; Man-Yuan Liu; Yan-Fang Guo; Hong Xu; Xiao Sun; Cheng Jiang; Su-Mei Xiao; Jing-Jing Guo; Yan-Jun Yang; Fei-Yan Deng; Yan-Bo Wang; Yuan-Neng Li; Xue-Zhen Zhu; Hong-Wen Deng
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2007-02-26       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 8.  The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Glen M Blake; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.401

9.  Variation in lumbar spine bone mineral content by age and gender in apparently healthy Indians.

Authors:  Nidhi Kadam; Anuradha Khadilkar; Shashi Chiplonkar; Vaman Khadilkar; Zulf Mughal
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  Patient assessment using standardized bone mineral density values and a national reference database: implementing uniform thresholds for the reimbursement of osteoporosis treatments in Belgium.

Authors:  S Boonen; J-M Kaufman; J-Y Reginster; J-P Devogelaer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-01-17       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.