Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26336349›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2015

Segmental Musculoskeletal Examinations using Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA): Positioning and Analysis Considerations.

Nicolas H Hart, Sophia Nimphius, Tania Spiteri, Jodie L Cochrane, Robert U Newton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicolas H HartECU Health and Wellness Institute, Edith Cowan University , Perth, W.A., Australia ; Fremantle Dockers Football Club , Perth, W.A., Australia.
Sophia NimphiusCentre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University , Perth, W.A., Australia.
Tania SpiteriCentre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University , Perth, W.A., Australia.
Jodie L CochraneCentre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University , Perth, W.A., Australia.
Robert U NewtonECU Health and Wellness Institute, Edith Cowan University , Perth, W.A., Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal examinations provide informative and valuable quantitative insight into muscle and bone health. DXA is one mainstream tool used to accurately and reliably determine body composition components and bone mass characteristics in-vivo. Presently, whole body scan models separate the body into axial and appendicular regions, however there is a need for localised appendicular segmentation models to further examine regions of interest within the upper and lower extremities. Similarly, inconsistencies pertaining to patient positioning exist in the literature which influence measurement precision and analysis outcomes highlighting a need for standardised procedure. This paper provides standardised and reproducible: 1) positioning and analysis procedures using DXA and 2) reliable segmental examinations through descriptive appendicular boundaries. Whole-body scans were performed on forty-six (n = 46) football athletes (age: 22.9 ± 4.3 yrs; height: 1.85 ± 0.07 cm; weight: 87.4 ± 10.3 kg; body fat: 11.4 ± 4.5 %) using DXA. All segments across all scans were analysed three times by the main investigator on three separate days, and by three independent investigators a week following the original analysis. To examine intra-rater and inter-rater, between day and researcher reliability, coefficients of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were determined. Positioning and segmental analysis procedures presented in this study produced very high, nearly perfect intra-tester (CV ≤ 2.0%; ICC ≥ 0.988) and inter-tester (CV ≤ 2.4%; ICC ≥ 0.980) reliability, demonstrating excellent reproducibility within and between practitioners. Standardised examinations of axial and appendicular segments are necessary. Future studies aiming to quantify and report segmental analyses of the upper- and lower-body musculoskeletal properties using whole-body DXA scans are encouraged to use the patient positioning and image analysis procedures outlined in this paper. Key pointsMusculoskeletal examinations using DXA technology require highly standardised and reproducible patient positioning and image analysis procedures to accurately measure and monitor axial, appendicular and segmental regions of interest.Internal rotation and fixation of the lower-limbs is strongly recommended during whole-body DXA scans to prevent undesired movement, improve frontal mass accessibility and enhance ankle joint visibility during scan performance and analysis.Appendicular segmental analyses using whole-body DXA scans are highly reliable for all regional upper-body and lower-body segmentations, with hard-tissue (CV ≤ 1.5%; R ≥ 0.990) achieving greater reliability and lower error than soft-tissue (CV ≤ 2.4%; R ≥ 0.980) masses when using our appendicular segmental boundaries.

Indexed as

bonecompositionmethodmuscleregionalSegmentationstandardisation

Identifiers

PMID26336349
PMCPMC4541127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.