9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

          Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) with central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the current "gold standard" for diagnosing osteoporosis and for monitoring patients. Errors in demographic information, improper patient positioning, incorrect scan analysis, and mistakes in interpretation can all lead to a wrong clinical decision or action. This paper reviews the fundamentals of positioning, scan analysis, and interpretation for central DXA and highlights some of the common pitfalls that may lead to erroneous results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Precision assessment and radiation safety for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: position paper of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

            Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis, assess the risk of fracture, and monitor changes in BMD over time. Because biological changes in BMD are usually small in proportion to the error inherent in the test itself, interpretation of serial BMD tests depends on knowledge of the smallest change in BMD that is beyond the range of error. This value, called the least significant change (LSC), varies according to the instrument used, the patient population being tested, the measurement site, the skill of the technologist at positioning the patient and analyzing the test, and the confidence interval used in the calculation. The precision and LSC values provided by the manufacturer cannot be applied to clinical bone densitometry centers because of the differences in the patients being tested and the technologist performing the test. Because harmful errors in clinical management may occur from incorrectly interpreting serial BMD tests, it is recommended that every DXA technologist conduct a precision assessment and calculate the LSC for each measurement site and DXA instrument used. Precision assessment provides direct benefit to patients by allowing clinicians to make clinical decisions based on genuine change or stability of BMD. The patient-care benefits of precision assessment outweigh the risk of exposure to trivial doses of ionizing radiation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of the Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometers for Assessing Total and Regional Body Composition

              The objective of the study was to assess the agreement of the Lunar Prodigy with the newer Lunar iDXA dual-energy X-ray absorptiometer for determining total body and regional (arms, legs, trunk) bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass (FM), lean tissue mass (LTM), total body mass, and percent fat. Ninety-two healthy adult males (n = 36) and females (n = 56) were scanned consecutively on the iDXA and the Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. For iDXA, relative to Prodigy, paired t tests indicated significantly lower estimates for total body and regional BMD and BMC (p < 0.001). Measures of total body and trunk FM, LTM, and percent fat did not differ between the instruments. In regional analyses, estimates of FM and percent fat were greater, and that of LTM was lower, in the arms (p < 0.001). In contrast, iDXA estimates of LTM were higher in the legs (p < 0.001). All body composition measures were significantly correlated (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analyses indicated that significant bias existed between iDXA and Prodigy for total body and regional BMD estimates (p < 0.001) such that iDXA underestimated BMD to a greater extent in persons with higher values. In addition, iDXA overestimation bias existed for FM in total body, arms, and legs, and the overestimation was primarily observed in participants with greater body fat (p < 0.001). When combining or comparing data from iDXA with those from Prodigy, investigators should be aware that certain total body and regional estimates are significantly different. The greatest percent differences were observed for arm BMD, FM, and percent fat.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Bone Metab
                J Bone Metab
                JBM
                Journal of Bone Metabolism
                The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research
                2287-6375
                2287-7029
                February 2021
                28 February 2021
                : 28
                : 1
                : 67-77
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [3 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea
                [4 ]Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [5 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Yong-Chan Ha, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06973, Korea, Tel: +82-2-6299-1577, Fax: +82-2-822-1710, E-mail: hayongch@ 123456naver.com
                [*]

                Byung-Ho Yoon and Young Do Koh contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8518-6331
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3575-4123
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6906-5182
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6249-0581
                Article
                jbm-2021-28-1-67
                10.11005/jbm.2021.28.1.67
                7973396
                33730785
                aa898bcc-d7a4-4e1c-a910-ec0ff6dbebfd
                Copyright © 2021 The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 January 2021
                : 14 February 2021
                : 16 February 2021
                Categories
                Original Article

                absorptiometry,photon,bone density,densitometry,osteoporosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article