Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Shepherd, J. A., Fan, B., Lu, Y., Lewiecki, E. M., Miller, P., & Genant, H. K. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 17(9):1303–1308, 2006. doi abstract bibtex INTRODUCTION: Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time. METHODS: We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6+/-8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences. RESULTS: While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1-L4 spine (1.0% vs 1.2%), total femur (0.9% vs 1.3%), femoral neck (1.5% vs 1.9%), and dual total femur (0.6% vs 0.9%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25% compared with single femur results. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient's BMD has occurred.
@article{shepherd_comparison_2006,
title = {Comparison of {BMD} precision for {Prodigy} and {Delphi} spine and femur scans},
volume = {17},
issn = {0937-941X},
doi = {10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9},
abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time.
METHODS: We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6+/-8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-\%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences.
RESULTS: While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1-L4 spine (1.0\% vs 1.2\%), total femur (0.9\% vs 1.3\%), femoral neck (1.5\% vs 1.9\%), and dual total femur (0.6\% vs 0.9\%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25\% compared with single femur results.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient's BMD has occurred.},
language = {eng},
number = {9},
journal = {Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA},
author = {Shepherd, J. A. and Fan, B. and Lu, Y. and Lewiecki, E. M. and Miller, P. and Genant, H. K.},
year = {2006},
pmid = {16823544},
keywords = {Absorptiometry, Photon, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bone Density, Female, Femur, Femur Neck, Hip Joint, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal, Postmenopause, Reproducibility of Results},
pages = {1303--1308}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"2PFP4ZojbDWKS6xww","bibbaseid":"shepherd-fan-lu-lewiecki-miller-genant-comparisonofbmdprecisionforprodigyanddelphispineandfemurscans-2006","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2019-04-17T02:30:34.451Z","title":"Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans","author_short":["Shepherd, J. A.","Fan, B.","Lu, Y.","Lewiecki, E. M.","Miller, P.","Genant, H. K."],"year":2006,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/groups/2318789/items?key=1PYKQpLJnNDRWzMpXmiUkO3n&format=bibtex&limit=100","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans","volume":"17","issn":"0937-941X","doi":"10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9","abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time. METHODS: We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6+/-8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences. RESULTS: While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1-L4 spine (1.0% vs 1.2%), total femur (0.9% vs 1.3%), femoral neck (1.5% vs 1.9%), and dual total femur (0.6% vs 0.9%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25% compared with single femur results. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient's BMD has occurred.","language":"eng","number":"9","journal":"Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shepherd"],"firstnames":["J.","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fan"],"firstnames":["B."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lu"],"firstnames":["Y."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lewiecki"],"firstnames":["E.","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Miller"],"firstnames":["P."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Genant"],"firstnames":["H.","K."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2006","pmid":"16823544","keywords":"Absorptiometry, Photon, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bone Density, Female, Femur, Femur Neck, Hip Joint, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal, Postmenopause, Reproducibility of Results","pages":"1303–1308","bibtex":"@article{shepherd_comparison_2006,\n\ttitle = {Comparison of {BMD} precision for {Prodigy} and {Delphi} spine and femur scans},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tissn = {0937-941X},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9},\n\tabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time.\nMETHODS: We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6+/-8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-\\%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences.\nRESULTS: While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1-L4 spine (1.0\\% vs 1.2\\%), total femur (0.9\\% vs 1.3\\%), femoral neck (1.5\\% vs 1.9\\%), and dual total femur (0.6\\% vs 0.9\\%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25\\% compared with single femur results.\nCONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient's BMD has occurred.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\tjournal = {Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA},\n\tauthor = {Shepherd, J. A. and Fan, B. and Lu, Y. and Lewiecki, E. M. and Miller, P. and Genant, H. K.},\n\tyear = {2006},\n\tpmid = {16823544},\n\tkeywords = {Absorptiometry, Photon, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bone Density, Female, Femur, Femur Neck, Hip Joint, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal, Postmenopause, Reproducibility of Results},\n\tpages = {1303--1308}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Shepherd, J. A.","Fan, B.","Lu, Y.","Lewiecki, E. M.","Miller, P.","Genant, H. K."],"key":"shepherd_comparison_2006","id":"shepherd_comparison_2006","bibbaseid":"shepherd-fan-lu-lewiecki-miller-genant-comparisonofbmdprecisionforprodigyanddelphispineandfemurscans-2006","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Absorptiometry","Photon","Aged","Aged","80 and over","Bone Density","Female","Femur","Femur Neck","Hip Joint","Humans","Lumbar Vertebrae","Middle Aged","Osteoporosis","Postmenopausal","Postmenopause","Reproducibility of Results"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["comparison","bmd","precision","prodigy","delphi","spine","femur","scans","shepherd","fan","lu","lewiecki","miller","genant"],"keywords":["absorptiometry","photon","aged","aged","80 and over","bone density","female","femur","femur neck","hip joint","humans","lumbar vertebrae","middle aged","osteoporosis","postmenopausal","postmenopause","reproducibility of results"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["7EYc3NEhitttREKr2"]}