Pitfalls in the Measurement of Bone Mineral Density by the Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometric Method

Fs, Kiraç; Yüksel, Doğangün; Ot, Yaylali

doi:10.1097/00003072-200110000-00019

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Published studies on disrupting factors in DXA examination are mostly descriptive and frequently performed in older patients or postmenopausal women [10, 17, 18, 25, 26]. Most studies describe only one of the factors in detail and we found no study determining the total amount of disrupting factors present in specific patient groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Lumbar spine and total-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children with severe neurological impairment and intellectual disability: a pilot study of artefacts and disrupting factors

Mergler

Rieken

Tibboel³

et al. 2012

Pediatr Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChildren with severe neurological impairment and intellectual disability (ID) are susceptible for developing low bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures. BMD is generally measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).ObjectiveTo describe the occurrence of factors that may influence the feasibility of DXA and the accuracy of DXA outcome in children with severe neurological impairment and ID.Materials and methodsBased on literature and expert opinion, a list of disrupting factors was developed. Occurrence of these factors was assessed in 27 children who underwent DXA measurement.ResultsDisrupting factors that occurred most frequently were movement during measurement (82%), aberrant body composition (67%), small length for age (56%) and scoliosis (37%). The number of disrupting factors per child was mean 5.3 (range 1–8). No correlation was found between DXA outcomes and the number of disrupting factors.ConclusionFactors that may negatively influence the accuracy of DXA outcome are frequently present in children with severe neurological impairment and ID. No systematic deviation of DXA outcome in coherence with the amount of disrupting factors was found, but physicians should be aware of the possible influence of disrupting factors on the accuracy of DXA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Lumbar spine and total-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children with severe neurological impairment and intellectual disability: a pilot study of artefacts and disrupting factors

Mergler

Rieken

Tibboel³

et al. 2012

Pediatr Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25 No such effect was seen with gadolinium-based agents, which may be related to the much lower serum concentration of these agents compared to iodinated contrast. 25 The literature examining the effects of oral contrast agents on DXA is quite limited—case reports and clinical experience have shown that barium sulfate can artifactually increase BMD if overlying bone and would have the opposite effect if barium is predominantly in the soft tissues adjacent to bone 26,27 (Figure 4).…”

Section: Operator-dependent/technical Pitfallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting: Pearls and Pitfalls

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the method of choice for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). Unfortunately, the performance and interpretation of DXA can be challenging and errors are common. In fact, it has been reported that up to 90% of BMD reports contain at least 1 error. Errors can be the result of technique or interpretative in nature or both and can result in inappropriate diagnosis and management. In this article, we review the various types of pitfalls frequently encountered by physicians interpreting DXA studies. Being aware of these pitfalls will help readers recognize and avoid them when encountered in clinical practice.

show abstract

Quality in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans

Morgan

Prater

2017

Bone

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pitfalls in the Measurement of Bone Mineral Density by the Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometric Method

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

Lumbar spine and total-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children with severe neurological impairment and intellectual disability: a pilot study of artefacts and disrupting factors

Lumbar spine and total-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children with severe neurological impairment and intellectual disability: a pilot study of artefacts and disrupting factors

Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting: Pearls and Pitfalls

Quality in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About