ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
A cross-calibration study using a novel dual X-ray absorptiometry system for bone mineral density measurements with the European Spine Phantom.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: For bone health assessment, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended to measure bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in the lumbar spine. However, intermachine differences were not taken into account when developing these recommendations. According to the International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD), phantom-based cross-calibration is adequate after replacing the DEXA system from a different manufacturer. For different DEXA equipment, individual calibration equations were found to be necessary to fit the observed values with the given densities. Methods: The BMD European Spine Phantom (ESP) measurements (L1, L2, and L3) were assessed on 3 machines. We used the Welch test in the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Results: The coefficients of variation (CV)% of the phantom BMD values measured using the 3 systems were less than 3.0%. The 3 DEXA systems were highly correlated with BMD in the lumbar spine, with correlation values ranging from 0.933 to 0.984 (P<0.0001). The cross-calibration regression models of the ESP measurements yielded the highest prediction accuracies with the lowest prediction errors (the standard error of the estimate ranged from 0.004 to 0.008 g/cm Conclusions: A strong agreement for BMD measurement was established between the 3 DEXA systems. Cross-calibration equations for the lumbar spine BMD values need to be applied to transform the Hologic Discovery A or GE Lunar iDXA measurements into SONIALVISION SMIT measurements to comply with the ISCD standards for patient continuity of care in assessment during clinical diagnosis.
Indexed as
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.