The interchangeability of radioisotope and X-ray based measurements of bone mineral density
- 3 March 1991
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 64 (759) , 217-220
- https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-759-217
Abstract
Lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) were measured with a Novo radioisotope based dual photon densitometer and with a Lunar X-ray densitometer in 94 subjects attending a Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic. There was a strong correlation between results obtained from each machine for the same skeletal site. The correlation coefficients for the spine and femoral neck were 0.97 and 0.88, respectively. The differences between results from each machine were normally distributed with a mean bias of 37.5% for the spine and 27.8% for the femur, which arise principally from differences in machine calibration. In each case the BMD was greater when measured by X-ray absorptiometry. The range for the bias was approximately 25-50% for the spine and 10-45% for the femoral neck. The results from these two machines are not interchangeable. When subjects who are participating in long term studies using a radioisotope densitometer are transferred to an X-ray densitometer, an individual conversion factor must be measured at each site for each subject.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- A comparison of quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine in postmenopausal womenCalcified Tissue International, 1989
- Comparison of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Dual Photon Absorptiometry for Bone Mineral Measurements of the Lumbar SpineMayo Clinic Proceedings, 1988
- Dual energy radiography (DER): A preliminary comparative studyCalcified Tissue International, 1988
- Forearm bone loss in hemiplegia: A model for the study of immobilization osteoporosisJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1988
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986