ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026
Age-related bone mineral density patterns in a large German clinical DXA cohort: device-specific comparisons with international reference populations.
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, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a large German clinical DXA cohort, comparisons with international reference populations were strongly device-dependent. iDXA values were consistently lower, whereas Prodigy Pro values showed closer but age- and cohort-dependent agreement. The data should not be interpreted as scanner-independent German normative reference values. PURPOSE: To describe age-related bone mineral density patterns in a German DXA cohort and to compare device-specific femoral neck (FN) and total hip (TH) standardized BMD values with international reference cohorts.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 6,086 women using GE Lunar iDXA or Prodigy Pro systems. Device-related differences were evaluated separately by age-group and measurement site using absolute and percentage differences, Hedges' g, Welch tests, and multiple comparison adjustment. For external comparisons, FN and TH BMD data for women aged 20-79 years were converted to standardized BMD and compared separately by device with NHANES III, the Irish DXA-HIP study, and the Italian DINS study. Hedges' g with 95% confidence intervals, two-sided Welch tests, and Holm-adjusted p values were calculated from summary statistics.
resultsProdigy Pro BMD values were higher than iDXA across most age groups and measurement sites, with moderate effect sizes in younger and middle-aged women and smaller differences at older ages. In external comparisons, iDXA sBMD was lower than all reference cohorts in all 36 comparisons (age/site/reference), remaining significant after Holm adjustment. Prodigy Pro showed smaller and age-dependent differences, with 18 of 36 comparisons remaining Holm-significant. Across the reference cohorts, Prodigy Pro percentage differences ranged from -8.9% to 1.3%, whereas iDXA ranged from -19.0% to -1.8%.
conclusionComparisons with international reference cohorts were strongly dependent on the DXA device. The present clinical cohort should not be interpreted as a scanner-independent German normative reference population. Device-stratified results provide a more appropriate description of concordance with international datasets than pooled analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42841935What 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.