Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414713›Full record

ArticleCalcified tissue international2024

Long-Term Reproducibility of BMD-Measurements with Clinical QCT Using Simultaneous and Asynchronous Calibration Methods and Different Measurement and Reconstruction Protocols.

Sophie du Mont, Reinhard Barkmann, Timo Damm, Jaime Peña, Stefan Reinhold, Marcus Both, Meike Mainusch, Claus-Christian Glüer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Calcified tissue international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Sophie du MontSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany. sophie@du-mont.de.ORCID 0009-0006-0153-732X
Reinhard BarkmannSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Timo DammSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Jaime PeñaSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Stefan ReinholdDepartment of Computer Science, Multimedia Information Processing Group, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Marcus BothDepartment of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Meike MainuschSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Claus-Christian GlüerSection Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01EC1005B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. To improve timely fracture risk assessment optimized densitometry methods are required such as opportunistic spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). However, it is unclear how to best calibrate these scans and correct for potential scanner drift of QCT when used for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes. We compared gold standard simultaneous calibration with asynchronous calibration methods, assessing mid-term (12 weeks) and long-term (1.5 years) reproducibility of BMD measurements. Cortical and trabecular compartments of the European Spine Phantom were studied with ten different protocols including low dose and high resolution (HR)-modes. Based on weekly phantom data, we compared simultaneous calibration to asynchronous single (termed global) or monthly calibration. The accuracy was better for trabecular measurements than for cortical measurements for all calibration methods. Reproducibility was excellent for all methods and slightly better for asynchronous than for simultaneous calibration both for trabecular and cortical bone. For HR protocols, reproducibility was better than for low dose measurements. In trabecular compartments averaged HR-BMD remained stable for global (- 0.1%/year, ns) but not for simultaneous calibration (- 1.5%/year, p < 0.001). No significant drifts could be detected for averaged low dose BMD (- 0.9 to + 0.8%/year) for either calibration method. Our data suggest that with regard to precision and accuracy measurements with asynchronous calibration are suitable for vertebral BMD assessment (no contrast agents) in clinical practice. Regular (e.g., monthly) stability tests using a calibration phantom could assure long term stability of at least 1 year.

Indexed as

Bone DensityOsteoporosisPhantoms, ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedCalibrationHumansReproducibility of ResultsAsynchronous calibration methodsBone densitometryEuropean spine phantomOsteoporosisQuantitative computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID39414713
PMCPMC11531420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.