Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry in daily clinical practice

被引:73
|
作者
El Maghraoui, A [1 ]
Zounon, AAD
Jroundi, I
Nouijai, A
Ghazi, M
Achemlal, L
Bezza, A
Tazi, MA
Abouqual, R
机构
[1] Military Hosp Mohammed 5, Rheumatol & Phys Rehabil Dept, Rabat, Morocco
[2] Fac Med & Pharm, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Rabat, Morocco
[3] Minist Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Rabat, Morocco
关键词
chronic rheumatic diseases; dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); healthy volunteers; osteoporosis; post-menopausal women; reproducibility;
D O I
10.1007/s00198-005-1916-2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Bone mineral density (BMD) measurements are frequently performed repeatedly for each patient. Subsequent BMD measurements allow reproducibility to be assessed. Previous studies have suggested that reproducibility may be influenced by age and clinical status. The purpose of the study was to examine the reproducibility of BMD by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and to investigate the practical value of different measures of reproducibility in three distinct groups of subjects: healthy young volunteers, postmenopausal women and patients with chronic rheumatic diseases. Two hundred twenty-two subjects underwent two subsequent BMD measurements of the spine and hip. There were 60 young healthy subjects, 102 postmenopausal women and 60 patients with chronic rheumatic diseases (33 rheumatoid arthritis, 10 ankylosing spondylitis and 10 other systemic diseases). Forty-five patients (75%) among the third group were receiving corticosteroids. Reproducibility was expressed as the smallest detectable difference (SDD), coefficient of variation (CV), least significant change (LSC) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sources of variation were investigated by linear regression analysis. The median interval between measurements was 0 days (range 0-7). The mean difference (SD) between the measurements (g/cm(2)) was -0.0001 (+/- 0.003) and -0.0004 (+/- 0.002) at L1-L4 and the total hip, respectively. At L1-L4 and the total hip, SDD (g/cm(2)) was +/- 0.04 and +/- 0.02, CV (%) was 2.02 and 1.29, and LSC (%) 5.60 and 3.56, respectively. The ICC at the spine and hip was 0.99 and 0.99, respectively. Only a minimal difference existed between the groups. Reproducibility in the three groups studied was good. In a repeated DXA scan, a BMD change, the least significant change (LSC) or the SDD should be regarded as significant. Use of the SDD is preferable to use of the CV and LSC because of its independence from BMD and its expression in absolute units. Expressed as SDD, a BMD change of at least +/- 0.04 g/cm(2) at L1-L4 and +/- 0.02 g/cm(2) at the total hip should be considered significant. This reproducibility seems independent from age and clinical status and improved in the hips by measuring the dual femur.
引用
收藏
页码:1742 / 1748
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Volumetric bone mineral density derived from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements
    Braillon, PM
    NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS, 1999, 20 (01) : 106 - 106
  • [22] Pitfalls in the measurement of bone mineral density by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry
    Antonacci, D
    Hanson, DS
    Heggeness, MH
    SPINE, 1996, 21 (01) : 87 - 90
  • [23] Precision of Bone Mineral Density Measurements Around Total Ankle Replacement Using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
    Messina, Carmelo
    Usuelli, Federico Giuseppe
    Maccario, Camilla
    Di Silvestri, Claudia Angela
    Gitto, Salvatore
    Cortese, Maria Cristina
    Albano, Domenico
    Sconfienza, Luca Maria
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2020, 23 (04) : 656 - 663
  • [24] Bone mineral density of the wind using dual X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar-Expert).
    Diessel, E
    Alenfeld, F
    Gowin, W
    Mueller, C
    Felsenberg, D
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, 1996, 11 : S580 - S580
  • [25] Assessing bone mineral density in vivo: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry
    Hester, PY
    Schreiweis, MA
    Orban, JI
    Mazzuco, H
    Kopka, MN
    Ledur, MC
    Moody, DE
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2004, 83 (02) : 215 - 221
  • [26] Comparison of bone mineral density with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, quantitative ultrasound and single energy x-ray absorptiometry
    El-Desouki, MI
    Sherafzal, MS
    Othman, SA
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 26 (09) : 1346 - 1350
  • [27] Reproducibility of Metacarpal Bone Mineral Density Measurements Obtained by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Early Arthritis
    Llorente, Irene
    Merino, Leticia
    Escolano, Eugenio
    Martinez Quintanilla, Dolores
    Garcia-Vadillo, Jesus A.
    Gonzalez-Alvaro, Isidoro
    Castaneda, Santos
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2020, 23 (04) : 678 - 684
  • [28] QUANTITATIVE ULTRASOUND BONE MEASUREMENTS - NORMAL VALUES AND COMPARISON WITH BONE-MINERAL DENSITY BY DUAL X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY
    MORIS, M
    PERETZ, A
    TJEKA, R
    NEGABAN, N
    WOUTERS, M
    BERGMANN, P
    CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL, 1995, 57 (01) : 6 - 10
  • [29] THE ACCURACY OF VOLUMETRIC BONE-DENSITY MEASUREMENTS IN DUAL X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY
    SABIN, MA
    BLAKE, GM
    MACLAUGHLINBLACK, SM
    FOGELMAN, I
    CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL, 1995, 56 (03) : 210 - 214
  • [30] INFLUENCE OF PATIENTS WEIGHT ON DUAL-PHOTON ABSORPTIOMETRY AND DUAL-ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY MEASUREMENTS OF BONE-MINERAL DENSITY
    MARTIN, P
    VERHAS, M
    ALS, C
    GEERTS, L
    PATERNOT, J
    BERGMANN, P
    OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1993, 3 (04) : 198 - 203