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

Saarelainen, J.; Hakulinen, Mikko; Rikkonen, Toni; Kröger, Heikki; Tuppurainen, Marjo; Koivumaa‐Honkanen, Heli; Honkanen, Risto; Hujo, Mika; Jurvelin, Jukka S.

doi:10.1155/2016/1424582

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fourth, in the present study, only GE DXA was used, and the reference database should be used for GE DXA; however, the absolute BMD value varied in DXA manufacturers; therefore, the reference database generated in this study should not be used in other DXA machines. On other hand, the BMD value by different DXA manufacturers are highly correlated; if proper cross‐calibration procedure is taken, then the results from this study can be transferred to another DXA machine …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prevalence of Osteoporosis in China, a Nationwide, Multicenter DXA Survey

Zeng

Wang

et al. 2019

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

232

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies investigated the distribution of BMD values and the prevalence of osteoporosis in China, but their findings varied. Until now, a BMD reference database based on uniform measurements in a large-scale Chinese population has been lacking. A total of 75,321 Chinese adults aged 20 years and older were recruited from seven centers between 2008 and 2018. BMD values at the lumbar spine (L 1 -L 4 ), femoral neck, and total femur were measured by GE Lunar dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry systems. BMD values measured in each center were cross-calibrated by regression equations that were generated by scanning the same European spine phantom 10 times at every center. Cubic and multivariate linear regression were performed to assess associations between BMD values and demographic variables. Sex-specific prevalence of osteoporosis was age-standardized based on the year 2010 national census data for the Chinese population. The sex-specific BMD values at each site were negatively associated with age, positively associated with body mass index levels, and lower in the participants from southwest China than in those from other geographic regions after multivariate adjustment. Furthermore, BMD values at the femoral neck and total femur decreased with the year of BMD measurement. The peak BMD values at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total femur were 1.088 g/cm 2 , 0.966 g/cm 2 , and 0.973 g/cm 2 , respectively, for men, and 1.114 g/cm 2 , 0.843 g/cm 2 , and 0.884 g/cm 2 , respectively, for women. The age-standardized prevalence of osteoporosis at the spine or hip was 6.46% and 29.13% for men and women aged 50 years and older, respectively. Currently a total of 10.9 million men and 49.3 million women in China are estimated to have osteoporosis. In our national examination of BMD, we found that BMD values differed by demographic characteristics. We estimated the age-standardize prevalence of osteoporosis in China to be 6.46% and 29.13% respectively, for men and women aged 50 years and older. 2018, 75,546 participants were enrolled. After the exclusion of one participant with a description error of the BMD measurement site, one participant who was measured in 1998, 214 participants with missing data on BMD values, and nine participants with BMI <10 kg/m 2 or >50 kg/m 2 , a total of 75,321 ◼ 2 ZENG ET AL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prevalence of Osteoporosis in China, a Nationwide, Multicenter DXA Survey

Zeng

Wang

et al. 2019

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

232

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ideally, the calibration materials and equations used to derive lean mass should be standardized across manufacturers or cross‐manufacturer algorithms should be developed by industry to standardize the output. It is also important to standardize the local regions of interest, such as trunk, arms, and legs, which are significantly different across manufacturers …”

Section: Measurement Of Lean Body Mass and Muscle Mass With Imaging Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard

Buckinx

Landi

Cesari

et al. 2018

J cachexia sarcopenia muscle

541

494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAll proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard.MethodsLiterature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face‐to‐face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations.ResultsA wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass.ConclusionsBased on the feasibility, accuracy, safety, and low cost, dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry can be considered as the reference standard for measuring muscle mass.

show abstract

“…The excellent BMD correlation between iDXA and Prodigy is well-demonstrated in previous studies, but the inconsistencies of BMD between 2 machines are an ongoing issue. [14][15][16]35] The smaller pixel size further enhances the bone edge detection of iDXA, which stands out for small bones such as the hands and feet. [38] However, edge detection might be attenuated as the automated analysis techniques might place edges or regions of interest more in large bones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1). [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] The studies identified for the meta-analysis involved 1,233 participants, with women comprising 808 (65.5%) of the sample population. Among the 14 studies, 8 articles compared PB and FB modes and other 6 studies compared FB and most recent FB mode (Table 1).…”

Section: Description Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies, involving a total of 481 patients, reported data on BMD. [14][15][16][17]19,27] In total lumbar BMD, there is no significant difference FB (Prodigy) and most recent FB (iDXA) (pooled WMD, -0.006; 95% CI, -0.026 to 0.014; P=0.567) No significant difference also observed in total hip (pooled WMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.017 to 0.14; P=0.821) and total body (pooled WMD, 0.015; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.34; P=0.109) (Fig. 3).…”

Section: Fb Vs Most Recent Fbmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has evolved from pencil-beam (PB) to narrow fan-beam (FB) densitometers. We performed a meta-analysis of the available observational studies to determine how different modes of DXA affect bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Methods: A total of 1,233 patients (808 women) from 14 cohort studies were included. We evaluated the differences in BMD according to the DXA mode: PB and FB. Additionally, we evaluated the differences in BMD between the 2 types of FB mode: FB (Prodigy) and the most recent FB (iDXA). Pairwise meta-analysis was performed, and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for (total lumbar, total hip, and total body). Results: No significant difference was observed in total lumbar (pooled WMD,-0.013; P=0.152) and total hip BMD (pooled WMD,-0.01; P=0.889), between PB and FB. However, total body BMD was significantly lower in the PB compared to the FB group (pooled WMD,-0.014; P=0.024). No significant difference was observed in lumbar BMD (pooled WMD,-0.006; P=0.567), total hip (pooled WMD,-0.002; P=0.821), and total body (pooled WMD, 0.015; P=0.109), between Prodigy and iDXA. Conclusions: The results of this study warrant the recommendation that correction equations should not be used when comparing BMD from different modes. Further research is still needed to highlight the ways in which differences between DXA systems can be minimized.

show abstract

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

Cited by 20 publications

References 29 publications

The Prevalence of Osteoporosis in China, a Nationwide, Multicenter DXA Survey

The Prevalence of Osteoporosis in China, a Nationwide, Multicenter DXA Survey

Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard

Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About