Literature DB >> 9205631

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

A Simmons1, D E Simpson, M J O'Doherty, S Barrington, A J Coakley.   

Abstract

The effect of two methods for standardizing dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements on patient classification by the T-score has been determined for a group of over 2000 patients. The methods proposed by the International DXA Standardization Committee and the European Community's COMAC-BME group were used in conjunction with young reference data from the major DXA manufacturers, the COMAC-BME group and the third US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). The two standardization techniques produced dissimilar classifications as measured by the kappa statistic (kappa = 0.34-0.90), especially for the femoral neck, with up to 24.3% of patients reclassified from osteopenic to normal and 18.6% reclassified from osteoporotic to osteopenic when the standardization method was changed. Considering the effects of both reference data and standardization techniques together, there was a wide variation of patient classification, with the number of patients classified as osteoporotic varying from 9.6% to 21.1% for the postero-anterior spine L2-4 region and from 2.3% to 27.6% for the femoral neck. The agreement between different classifications ranged widely, from very poor to excellent (kappa = 0.02-0.98). The creation of standardized reference data must be an important priority in order to harmonize patient management using standardized BMD measurements. The choice of standardization technique, however, must be addressed in light of the results presented here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9205631     DOI: 10.1007/bf01622289

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


  39 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.  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

3.  Work in progress: a cross-correlation study on four DXA instruments designed to culminate in inter-manufacturer standardization.

Authors:  R H Nord
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements.

Authors:  J Johnson; B Dawson-Hughes
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Precision of regional bone mineral measurements obtained from total-body scans.

Authors:  A D LeBlanc; V S Schneider; D A Engelbretson; H J Evans
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Bone mineral in the radius and vertebral osteoporosis in an insured population. A correlative study using 125-I photon absorption and miniature roentgenography.

Authors:  N F Goldsmith; J O Johnston; G Picetti; C Garcia
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1973-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  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

Review 8.  Peak bone mass.

Authors:  J P Bonjour; G Theintz; F Law; D Slosman; R Rizzoli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Bone mineral acquisition during adolescence and early adulthood: a study in 574 healthy females 10-24 years of age.

Authors:  J P Sabatier; G Guaydier-Souquières; D Laroche; A Benmalek; L Fournier; F Guillon-Metz; J Delavenne; A Y Denis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry normal reference range use within the UK and the effect of different normal ranges on the assessment of bone density.

Authors:  A Simmons; S Barrington; M J O'Doherty; A J Coakley
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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 3.  Animal models for fracture treatment in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Marcus Egermann; J Goldhahn; E Schneider
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-05       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  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

Review 5.  Guidelines for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: T-scores vs fractures.

Authors:  Paul D Miller
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 9.306

6.  Determination of baseline bone mineral density using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in Suffolk-Dorset hybrid ewes.

Authors:  Subburamanujam Ayyappan; Bharathi Niveditha; Gert J Breur
Journal:  Int J Vet Sci Med       Date:  2017-04-27
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.