Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

Messina, Carmelo; Bandirali, Michele; Sconfienza, Luca Maria; D’Alonzo, Nathascja Katia; Leo, Giovanni Di; Papini, Giacomo Davide Edoardo; Ulivieri, Fabio Massimo; Sardanelli, Francesco

doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3509-y

Cited by 79 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used in clinical practice [2–4]. Advantages of DXA are the very low radiation dose administered to patients, its very good reproducibility, and the capability to provide bone mineral density (BMD) values at central sites that relate to fracture risk [3, 5]. Other available techniques include quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesDual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults.MethodsBetween June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers’ scores.ResultsFour out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).ConclusionsOverall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines.Main messages• Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%).• Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%).• Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%).• Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Common errors in BMD testing can be separated into four categories: 1) indication errors, 2) lack of quality control and calibration, 3) analysis and interpretation errors, and 4) acquisition errors (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Acquisition errors have been well defined in previous studies including improper patient positioning, inappropriate scan mode, invalid skeletal site, persistent artifacts from the scanned area and incorrect demographic information (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acquisition errors have been well defined in previous studies including improper patient positioning, inappropriate scan mode, invalid skeletal site, persistent artifacts from the scanned area and incorrect demographic information (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). To our knowledge, there is no multicenter study that identifies and quantifies acquisition errors in DXA scanning in Turkey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Mistakes in the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A Retrospective Descriptive Multicenter Study

Karahan

Kaya

Kuran

et al. 2016

Acta Med. (Hradec Kralove, Czech Repub.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:Background: Osteoporosis is a widespread metabolic bone disease representing a global public health problem currently affecting more than two hundred million people worldwide. The World Health Organization states that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the best densitometric technique for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). DXA provides an accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis, a good estimation of fracture risk, and is a useful tool for monitoring patients undergoing treatment. Common mistakes in BMD testing can be divided into four principal categories: 1) indication errors, 2) lack of quality control and calibration, 3) analysis and interpretation errors, and 4) inappropriate acquisition techniques. The aim of this retrospective multicenter descriptive study is to identify the common errors in the application of the DXA technique in Turkey. Methods: All DXA scans performed during the observation period were included in the study if the measurements of both, the lumbar spine and proximal femur were recorded. Forearm measurement, total body measurements, and measurements performed on children were excluded. Each examination was surveyed by 30 consultants from 20 different centers each informed and trained in the principles of and the standards for DXA scanning before the study. Results: A total of 3,212 DXA scan results from 20 different centers in 15 different Turkish cities were collected. The percentage of the discovered erroneous measurements varied from 10.5% to 65.5% in the lumbar spine and from 21.3% to 74.2% in the proximal femur. The overall error rate was found to be 31.8% (n = 1021) for the lumbar spine and 49.0% (n = 1576) for the

show abstract

“…1 According to the definition given by the World Health Organization, a patient is diagnosed as having osteoporosis when his/her bone mineral density is 2.5 standard deviations or more below the mean peak bone mass (defined by the average value for young healthy adults). 2 For measuring bone density and evaluating osteoporosis or fracture risk prediction, dual X-ray absorptiometry is considered the "gold standard" method, 3 while ultrasound methodology has been developed for population screening and diagnosis in primary care. 4,5 In clinical practice, according to osteoporotic condition, osteoporosis is usually categorized as primary or secondary osteoporosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanotechnology for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Gao¹,

Wei²,

Yang³

et al. 2015

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoporosis is a serious public health problem affecting hundreds of millions of aged people worldwide, with severe consequences including vertebral fractures that are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. To augment or treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures, a number of surgical approaches including minimally invasive vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been developed. However, these approaches face problems and difficulties with efficacy and long-term stability. Recent advances and progress in nanotechnology are opening up new opportunities to improve the surgical procedures for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures. This article reviews the improvements enabled by new nanomaterials and focuses on new injectable biomaterials like bone cements and surgical instruments for treating vertebral fractures. This article also provides an introduction to osteoporotic vertebral fractures and current clinical treatments, along with the rationale and efficacy of utilizing nanomaterials to modify and improve biomaterials or instruments. In addition, perspectives on future trends with injectable bone cements and surgical instruments enhanced by nanotechnology are provided.

show abstract

Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

Abstract: • More than 90 % of DXA examinations/reports presented one or more errors. • About 80 % of errors are related to image data analysis. • Errors in DXA examinations may have potential implications for patients' management.

Cited by 79 publications

References 17 publications

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

Common Mistakes in the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A Retrospective Descriptive Multicenter Study

Nanotechnology for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About