ArticleJournal of osteoporosis2016
Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements.
Article in Journal of osteoporosis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04287153 (Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cryotherapy in Slimming of the Abdomen and Saddlebags), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cryotherapy in Slimming of the Abdomen and Saddlebags
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- High prevalence of low bone mineral density in wheelchair users regardless of sports participation: a cross-sectional analysis of the bonewheel study.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Quantitative computed tomography provides improved accuracy for diagnosis of lumbar osteoporosis in patients with facet joint osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- A cross-calibration study using a novel dual X-ray absorptiometry system for bone mineral density measurements with the European Spine Phantom.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Changes in bone mineral density in unconscious immobile stroke patients from the acute to chronic phases of brain diseases.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Long-Term Femoral Neck Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women: A 25-Year Follow-Up.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2022Article
- Physiology, pathophysiology and (mal)adaptations to chronic apnoeic training: a state-of-the-art review.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Review
- Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review.Journal of bone metabolism · 2021Article
- The Copenhagen Sarcopenia Study: lean mass, strength, power, and physical function in a Danish cohort aged 20-93 years.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2019Article
- Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In long-term prospective studies, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices need to be inevitably changed. It is essential to assess whether systematic differences will exist between measurements with the new and old device. A group of female volunteers (21-72 years) underwent anteroposterior lumbar spine L2-L4 (n = 72), proximal femur (n = 72), and total body (n = 62) measurements with the Prodigy and the iDXA scanners at the same visit. The bone mineral density (BMD) measurements with these two scanners showed a high linear association at all tested sites (r = 0.962-0.995; p < 0.0001). The average iDXA BMD values were 1.5%, 0.5%, and 0.9% higher than those of Prodigy for lumbar spine (L2-L4) (p < 0.0001), femoral neck (p = 0.048), and total hip (p < 0.0001), respectively. Total body BMD values measured with the iDXA were -1.3% lower (p < 0.0001) than those measured with the Prodigy. For total body, lumbar spine, and femoral neck, the BMD differences as measured with these two devices were independent of subject height and weight. Linear correction equations were developed to ensure comparability of BMD measurements obtained with both DXA scanners. Importantly, use of equations from previous studies would have increased the discrepancy between these particular DXA scanners, especially at hip and at spine.
Identifiers
What 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.