Cargando…

Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries

BACKGROUND: Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Ae Ja, Choi, Jee-Hye, Kang, Hyun, Park, Ki Jeong, Kim, Ha Young, Kim, Seo Hwa, Kim, Deog-Yoon, Park, Seung-Hwan, Ha, Yong-Chan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26082913
http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45
_version_ 1782376215656529920
author Park, Ae Ja
Choi, Jee-Hye
Kang, Hyun
Park, Ki Jeong
Kim, Ha Young
Kim, Seo Hwa
Kim, Deog-Yoon
Park, Seung-Hwan
Ha, Yong-Chan
author_facet Park, Ae Ja
Choi, Jee-Hye
Kang, Hyun
Park, Ki Jeong
Kim, Ha Young
Kim, Seo Hwa
Kim, Deog-Yoon
Park, Seung-Hwan
Ha, Yong-Chan
author_sort Park, Ae Ja
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP). METHODS: We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd). RESULTS: Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm(2)), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm(2)), and 5% (0.075 g/cm(2)) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4466444
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44664442015-06-16 Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries Park, Ae Ja Choi, Jee-Hye Kang, Hyun Park, Ki Jeong Kim, Ha Young Kim, Seo Hwa Kim, Deog-Yoon Park, Seung-Hwan Ha, Yong-Chan J Bone Metab Original Article BACKGROUND: Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP). METHODS: We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd). RESULTS: Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm(2)), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm(2)), and 5% (0.075 g/cm(2)) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization. The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2015-05 2015-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4466444/ /pubmed/26082913 http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45 Text en Copyright © 2015 The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Park, Ae Ja
Choi, Jee-Hye
Kang, Hyun
Park, Ki Jeong
Kim, Ha Young
Kim, Seo Hwa
Kim, Deog-Yoon
Park, Seung-Hwan
Ha, Yong-Chan
Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title_full Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title_fullStr Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title_full_unstemmed Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title_short Result of Proficiency Test and Comparison of Accuracy Using a European Spine Phantom among the Three Bone Densitometries
title_sort result of proficiency test and comparison of accuracy using a european spine phantom among the three bone densitometries
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26082913
http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45
work_keys_str_mv AT parkaeja resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT choijeehye resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT kanghyun resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT parkkijeong resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT kimhayoung resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT kimseohwa resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT kimdeogyoon resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT parkseunghwan resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries
AT hayongchan resultofproficiencytestandcomparisonofaccuracyusingaeuropeanspinephantomamongthethreebonedensitometries