Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35614236›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2022

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanner mismatch in follow-up bone mineral density testing.

K Lee, K Al Jumaily, M Lin, K Siminoski, C Ye

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bone Health in Space Flight: Incomplete Bone Mineral Density Convalescence at 1 Year Postmission Without Increased Fracture Risk.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LeeDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
K Al JumailyDivision of Core Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
M LinData and Research Services, Alberta SPOR Support Unit and Provincial Research Data Services, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
K SiminoskiDpartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging and Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
C YeDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, 13-103 Clinical Sciences Building, 11350-83 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G3, Canada. cye@ualberta.ca.
University of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scanner mismatch occurs frequently with follow-up dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Nearly one-in-five follow-up DXA scans were conducted on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) and more than a quarter of patients who had a follow-up DXA scan had experienced scanner mismatch.

introductionDetecting significant changes in bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners relies on the least significant change (LSC). Results from two different DXA scanners can only be compared, albeit with decreased sensitivity for change, if the LSC between the two scanners has been directly determined through cross-calibration. Performing follow-up DXA scans on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) has safety and economic implications. This study aims to determine the proportion of scanner mismatch occurring at a population level.

methodsAll patients who completed at least two DXA scans between 1 April 2009 and 31 December 2018 in the province of Alberta, Canada, were identified using population-based health services databases. Scanner mismatch was defined as a follow-up DXA scan completed on a DXA scanner that differed from and was not cross-calibrated to the previous DXA scanner. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess predictive factors that may contribute to scanner mismatch.

resultsA total of 264,866 patients with 470,641 follow-up DXA scans were identified. Scanner mismatch occurred in 18.9% of follow-up DXA scans; 28.7% of patients experienced at least one scanner mismatch. Longer duration between scans (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.24-1.26) and major osteoporotic fracture history before index scan (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) increased risk of scanner mismatch. Osteoporosis medication use before index scan (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.88-0.91), recency of follow-up scans (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-0.98), female sex (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00), and age at last scan (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00) were associated with lower risk of scanner mismatch.

conclusionScanner mismatch is a common problem, occurring in one-in-five follow-up DXA scans and affecting more than a quarter of patients. Interventions to reduce this large proportion of scanner mismatch are necessary.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBone DensityAlbertaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleOsteoporosisSex FactorsTime FactorsDXAFracture risk assessmentGeneral population studiesOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID35614236
OpenAlexW4281557430

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.