ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2015
Segmental Musculoskeletal Examinations using Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA): Positioning and Analysis Considerations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Examining intra- and inter-tester reliability of post-scan dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry regional body composition analysis in athletes.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Load- and velocity-specific adaptations to lower-body maximal strength training (MST), hypertrophy training (HT) and explosive strength training (EST).European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Validity of DEXA-Derived Thigh Muscle Quantification Against AI-Assisted CT: Inter-Limb Asymmetry Provides Superior Agreement over Absolute Values.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Thigh Mineral-Free Lean Mass Measures Using Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Young Children.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Lipodystrophy in methylmalonic acidemia associated with elevated FGF21 and abnormal methylmalonylation.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Reliability, biological variability, and accuracy of multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring body composition components.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- The role of muscle mass in vascular remodeling: insights from a single-leg amputee model.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Article
- The Relationship Between Health and Movement Screens and Field-Based Physical Fitness Tests in Reserve Officer Training Corps Students.International journal of exercise science · 2023Article
- Characterising lower-body musculoskeletal morphology and whole-body composition of elite female and male Australian Football players.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Changes in body composition in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma and the relationship with activity levels and dietary intake.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Observational
- Sporting activity does not fully prevent bone demineralization at the impaired hip in athletes with amputation.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Pre-season body composition has minimal influence on in-season match availability, and match performance in female Australian Football League (AFLW) players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
26336349PMC4541127What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.