A Cross-Calibration Study of the GE-Lunar iDXA and Prodigy for the Assessment of Lumbar Spine and Total Hip Bone Parameters via Three Statistical Methods

Hind, Karen; Cooper, William; Oldroyd, B.; Davies, Andrew G.; Rhodes, Laura A.

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2013.09.011

Cited by 17 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, compared to previous results [ 4 , 6 , 7 ], the discrepancy could be 2.7%, 2.5%, and 1.1% at spine [ 4 ], femoral neck [ 4 ], and total hip [ 7 ], respectively. Importantly, linear correction equations between iDXA and Prodigy, as derived in these previous cross-calibration studies [ 4 , 6 , 7 ] and implemented in the present study, would have increased the disagreement, especially at the femoral neck, the total hip, and the lumbar spine ROIs, between our two DXA devices. Furthermore, no significant correlations were observed between BMD Prodigy and BMD iDXA differences and mean BMD values of the two devices in femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine ROIs [ 4 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…In the present study, iDXA measured BMD values at the lumbar spine (L2–L4), femoral neck, and total hip were higher than those measured with Prodigy (i.e., 1.5%, 0.5%, and 0.9%, resp.). In contrast, previous studies have reported that BMD iDXA values were lower than BMD Prodigy values at the lumbar spine (ranging from −0.25% to −1.2%), femoral neck (ranging from −0.7% to −2.0%), and total hip (ranging from −0.1% to −0.2%) ROIs [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. As an exception Choi et al measured BMD iDXA values to be 0.3% higher than BMD Prodigy values at the total hip ROI [ 4 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements

Saarelainen

Hakulinen

Rikkonen

et al. 2016

Journal of Osteoporosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In long-term prospective studies, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices need to be inevitably changed. It is essential to assess whether systematic differences will exist between measurements with the new and old device. A group of female volunteers (21–72 years) underwent anteroposterior lumbar spine L2–L4 (n = 72), proximal femur (n = 72), and total body (n = 62) measurements with the Prodigy and the iDXA scanners at the same visit. The bone mineral density (BMD) measurements with these two scanners showed a high linear association at all tested sites (r = 0.962–0.995; p < 0.0001). The average iDXA BMD values were 1.5%, 0.5%, and 0.9% higher than those of Prodigy for lumbar spine (L2–L4) (p < 0.0001), femoral neck (p = 0.048), and total hip (p < 0.0001), respectively. Total body BMD values measured with the iDXA were −1.3% lower (p < 0.0001) than those measured with the Prodigy. For total body, lumbar spine, and femoral neck, the BMD differences as measured with these two devices were independent of subject height and weight. Linear correction equations were developed to ensure comparability of BMD measurements obtained with both DXA scanners. Importantly, use of equations from previous studies would have increased the discrepancy between these particular DXA scanners, especially at hip and at spine.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements

Saarelainen

Hakulinen

Rikkonen

et al. 2016

Journal of Osteoporosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…При моделировании ПжК и выполнении ручной коррекции выделения площади lSc = 0,0101×1,96 = 0,019 г/см 2 . эти данные сопоставимы, хотя несколько выше результатов многократных измерений lSc по рекомендациям IScD, выполненным на iDxa (lSc = 0,014 г/см 2 ) [11]. Фантом РСК ФК2 перспективен для разработки методики оценки lSc без сканирования пациентов, которое актуально в условиях отсутствия нормативно-правовой базы для подобного рода исследований (без медицинских показаний), т.к.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Применение в разработанном фантоме двух вариантов модификации (с моделированием ПжК и без) обеспечивает проведение кросс-калибровки исследований на разных аппаратах, учитывая значение ИМТ пациентов. например, результаты сканирования фантомов разных типов, включая eSP, продемонстрировали идентичность измерений МПК для двух сканеров lunar iDxa и Prodigy, однако последующие исследования пациентов с разными ИМТ выявили различия в измерениях МПК, что позволило уточнить параметры кросс-калибровки [11]. Продемонстрированное в нашей работе влияние жировой ткани, приводящее к относительному повышению измеренной МПК, согласуется с результатами клинических данных, полученных при наблюдении пациентов с ожирением после бариатрического лечения [23].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Выделяют кратковременную воcпроизводимость (short term precision)стабильность измерений сканера в течение одного рабочего дня (или в течение одной недели) и долговременную воспроизводимость (long term precision) -в течение бóльшего промежутка времени (несколько месяцев, годы) [9]. несмотря на большое количество выполненных работ, посвященных определению точности денситометрических исследований, проблема остается актуальной для проведения сравнения результатов измерений МПК на денситометрах разных производителей, кросс-калибровок различных денситометров, формирования нормативных баз данных по МПК [10,11]. Для выполнения указанных работ разработаны модели фантомов, в частности антропоморфный фантом eSP (european spine phantom) [12] и другие.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment the Accuracy of Densitometry Measurements Using DMA PP2 Phantom

Петряйкин

Смолярчук

Петряйкин

et al. 2019

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the study — to assess the accuracy of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA ) for measurements of mineral bone density, bone mineral content, area of selected spine zone of examination as well as impact of subcutaneous fat layer and correction of auto-segmenting of the spine on the mentioned parameters. Material and Methods. The study was performed on iDXA scanner using the designed phantom DMA PP2 of the lumber spine with inlays to simulate subcutaneous fat (SF). To ensure correct assessment of measurements (precision and accuracy) the authors performed fivefold repeated scanning. Two modifications of the phantom were used, with and without SF inlays, as well as two methods for selection of spine range for examination – automatic and correction of autosegmentation. Results. Scanning of the phantom without SF inlays demonstrated a systematic understated values of bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) along the full measured interval: mean relative error of BMD for L1-L4 interval was 10.62% with automatic segmentation and 7.43% — with correction of autosegmentation. The least accuracy for BMD and BMC (1.53% and 0.90%, respectively) was observed during SF simulation and with correction of auto-segmentation of the spine. Analysis of variation coefficient for area of examined vertebrae, BMC and BMD demonstrated rather high precision of measurements, namely for BMD without SF in the L1-L4 interval amounted to 1.00% (auto-segmentation) and 0.56% (correction). Variation coefficient for scanning including SF inlays in the interval L1-L4 was 1.00% (auto-segmentation) and 0.68% (correction). Conclusion. The lowest level of accuracy was observed with the SFL object; in this case, the variation coefficient did not exceed 1% for all BMD interval. The mean value of the BMC accuracy also did not exceed 1% with the optimal scan parameters. The study proved the effectiveness of “RSK PK2” phantom when estimating the accuracy of BMD and BMC on iDXA scanner.

show abstract

Cross-Calibration of iDXA and pQCT Scanners at Rural and Urban Research Sites in The Gambia, West Africa

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between-scanner differences in measures of bone and body composition can obscure or exaggerate physiological differences in multi-site studies or the magnitude of changes in longitudinal studies. We conducted a cross-calibration study at two bone imaging centres in The Gambia, West Africa where DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and pQCT (peripheral Quantitative-Computed Tomography) are routinely used. Repeat scans were obtained from 64 Gambian adults (58% Male) aged Mean(SD) 30.9 (13.5) years with Mean(SD) body mass index (BMI) 21.7 (4.0) kg/m2, using DXA (GE Lunar iDXA, whole body [WB], total hip [TH], lumbar spine [LS]) and pQCT (Stratec XCT2000L/XCT2000, tibia 4%, 50% sites). Between-scanner differences were tested using paired t tests (p < 0.05). Between-scanner correlation was explored with linear regression, and cross-calibration equations derived. Bland–Altman analysis investigated machine trend/bias. When differences were detected (p < 0.05), cross-calibration equations were applied to urban values, with t tests and Bland Altman analysis repeated. Between-scanner differences exceeded the predefined level of statistical significance (p < 0.05) for WB aBMD and BA; all pQCT measures vBMD, BMC, cortical cross-sectional area (CSA) and stress–strain index (SSI). Between-scanner correlation was high (R2:0.92–0.99), except pQCT Mu.Den (R2 = 0.51). Bland Altman plots indicated bias increased with increasing BMD. Cross-calibration equations attenuated all between-scanner differences and systematic bias. Cross-calibration, particularly of pQCT scanners, is an important consideration in multi-site studies particularly where between population comparisons are intended. Our experiences and findings may be generalisable to other resource-limited settings where the logistics of sourcing parts and in-country repair may result in lengthy scanner downtime.

show abstract

A Cross-Calibration Study of the GE-Lunar iDXA and Prodigy for the Assessment of Lumbar Spine and Total Hip Bone Parameters via Three Statistical Methods

Cited by 17 publications

References 21 publications

Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements

Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements

Assessment the Accuracy of Densitometry Measurements Using DMA PP2 Phantom

Cross-Calibration of iDXA and pQCT Scanners at Rural and Urban Research Sites in The Gambia, West Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About