The Experts below are selected from a list of 168 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Neil Binkley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
spine trabecular bone score precision a comparison between ge lunar standard and high resolution Densitometers
Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2015Co-Authors: Diane Krueger, Jessie Libber, Neil BinkleyAbstract:Abstract Trabecular bone score (TBS) is related to microarchitecture and fracture risk independently of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. Widespread clinical TBS use requires documentation of reproducibility and ideally comparability across scanners. This study evaluated TBS reproducibility and explored differences between Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Densitometers. Reproducibility was assessed from replicate scans in 210 men and women participating in various dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) precision assessments. iDXA-to-Prodigy comparability was evaluated using 155 participants from 3 study groups. L1–L4 BMD and TBS precision was similar on iDXA and Prodigy (BMD coefficient of variation = 1.9% and 1.5% and TBS coefficient of variation = 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively). Precision did not differ between men and women; however, between-technologist differences ( p R 2 = 0.85 with bias of −0.010 TBS units). Agreement was less robust comparing Prodigy with iDXA instruments (TBS R 2 : 0.72–0.81 with biases of 0.012–0.034 TBS units). In conclusion, TBS precision is comparable to that of BMD and does not differ between men and women. Additionally, in these cohorts, slight TBS differences were observed between iDXA and Prodigy scans. These data suggest a potential difference between densitometer models perhaps due to higher iDXA image resolution.
-
bmd measurement and precision a comparison of ge lunar prodigy and idxa Densitometers
Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2012Co-Authors: Diane Krueger, Nellie Vallartaast, Mary Checovich, Dessa Gemar, Neil BinkleyAbstract:Abstract This study assessed bone mineral density (BMD) comparability and precision using Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Densitometers (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) in adults. Additionally, the utility of supine forearm measurement with iDXA was investigated. Lumbar spine and bilateral proximal femur measurements were obtained in routine clinical manner in 345 volunteers, 202 women and 143 men of mean age 52.5 (range: 20.1–91.6)yr. Seated and supine distal forearm scans were obtained in a subset (n=50). Lumbar spine and proximal femur precision assessments were performed on each instrument following International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommendations in 30 postmenopausal women. BMD at the L1–L4 spine, total proximal femur, and femoral neck was very highly correlated ( r 2 ≥0.98) between Densitometers, as was the one-third radius site ( r 2 =0.96). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated no clinically significant bias at all evaluated sites. BMD precision was similar between instruments at the L1–L4 spine, mean total proximal femur, and femoral neck. Finally, one-third radius BMD measurements in the supine vs seated position on the iDXA were highly correlated ( r 2 =0.96). In conclusion, there is excellent BMD correlation between iDXA and Prodigy Densitometers. Similarly, BMD precision is comparable with these two instruments.
-
Bone Loss Detection in Rats Using a Mouse Densitometer
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2003Co-Authors: Neil Binkley, Diane Krueger, Db Dahl, Jean A. Engelke, T Kawahara‐baccus, Rj ColmanAbstract:Estrogen-depletion bone-loss studies often use ovariectomized (ovx) rats and measure bone mineral density in vivo or ex vivo using DXA. Recently, a portable densitometer (PIXImus) was developed for mouse research; however, its use in rats is unclear. This study compared the ability of PIXImus and a standard densitometer (DPXL) to detect ovx-induced bone loss in rats both in vivo and ex vivo. Additionally, instrument accuracy was assessed by comparing measured bone mass with ash weight. Finally, the use of two distal femur regions of interest (ROI) to detect ovx-induced bone loss was evaluated. Twenty-three 6-month-old nulliparous female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to sham or ovx groups. Distal femur bone mineral density was assessed at baseline and at 1 and 2 months postoperatively, using a PIXImus and DPXL densitometer. At 3 months postoperatively, all animals were killed, and ex vivo femur scans obtained. Distal femur bone loss was demonstrable by 1 month post-ovx using either densitometer. With the PIXImus, a 4-mm ROI demonstrated greater bone loss (p < 0.05) than an 8-mm ROI. Using the 4-mm ROI, similar amounts of bone loss were detected by the PIXImus and DPXL: 22.2% and 22.4%, respectively, at 2 months post-ovx. Total femur bone mineral content was overestimated by the PIXImus but highly correlated with the DPXL measurement (r = 0.988) and ash weight (r = 0.998). Given its comparability to standard DXA plus its rapid scan speed and portability, the PIXImus is useful in evaluating ovx-induced osteopenia in rats.
Diane Krueger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
spine trabecular bone score precision a comparison between ge lunar standard and high resolution Densitometers
Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2015Co-Authors: Diane Krueger, Jessie Libber, Neil BinkleyAbstract:Abstract Trabecular bone score (TBS) is related to microarchitecture and fracture risk independently of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. Widespread clinical TBS use requires documentation of reproducibility and ideally comparability across scanners. This study evaluated TBS reproducibility and explored differences between Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Densitometers. Reproducibility was assessed from replicate scans in 210 men and women participating in various dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) precision assessments. iDXA-to-Prodigy comparability was evaluated using 155 participants from 3 study groups. L1–L4 BMD and TBS precision was similar on iDXA and Prodigy (BMD coefficient of variation = 1.9% and 1.5% and TBS coefficient of variation = 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively). Precision did not differ between men and women; however, between-technologist differences ( p R 2 = 0.85 with bias of −0.010 TBS units). Agreement was less robust comparing Prodigy with iDXA instruments (TBS R 2 : 0.72–0.81 with biases of 0.012–0.034 TBS units). In conclusion, TBS precision is comparable to that of BMD and does not differ between men and women. Additionally, in these cohorts, slight TBS differences were observed between iDXA and Prodigy scans. These data suggest a potential difference between densitometer models perhaps due to higher iDXA image resolution.
-
bmd measurement and precision a comparison of ge lunar prodigy and idxa Densitometers
Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2012Co-Authors: Diane Krueger, Nellie Vallartaast, Mary Checovich, Dessa Gemar, Neil BinkleyAbstract:Abstract This study assessed bone mineral density (BMD) comparability and precision using Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Densitometers (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) in adults. Additionally, the utility of supine forearm measurement with iDXA was investigated. Lumbar spine and bilateral proximal femur measurements were obtained in routine clinical manner in 345 volunteers, 202 women and 143 men of mean age 52.5 (range: 20.1–91.6)yr. Seated and supine distal forearm scans were obtained in a subset (n=50). Lumbar spine and proximal femur precision assessments were performed on each instrument following International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommendations in 30 postmenopausal women. BMD at the L1–L4 spine, total proximal femur, and femoral neck was very highly correlated ( r 2 ≥0.98) between Densitometers, as was the one-third radius site ( r 2 =0.96). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated no clinically significant bias at all evaluated sites. BMD precision was similar between instruments at the L1–L4 spine, mean total proximal femur, and femoral neck. Finally, one-third radius BMD measurements in the supine vs seated position on the iDXA were highly correlated ( r 2 =0.96). In conclusion, there is excellent BMD correlation between iDXA and Prodigy Densitometers. Similarly, BMD precision is comparable with these two instruments.
-
Bone Loss Detection in Rats Using a Mouse Densitometer
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2003Co-Authors: Neil Binkley, Diane Krueger, Db Dahl, Jean A. Engelke, T Kawahara‐baccus, Rj ColmanAbstract:Estrogen-depletion bone-loss studies often use ovariectomized (ovx) rats and measure bone mineral density in vivo or ex vivo using DXA. Recently, a portable densitometer (PIXImus) was developed for mouse research; however, its use in rats is unclear. This study compared the ability of PIXImus and a standard densitometer (DPXL) to detect ovx-induced bone loss in rats both in vivo and ex vivo. Additionally, instrument accuracy was assessed by comparing measured bone mass with ash weight. Finally, the use of two distal femur regions of interest (ROI) to detect ovx-induced bone loss was evaluated. Twenty-three 6-month-old nulliparous female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to sham or ovx groups. Distal femur bone mineral density was assessed at baseline and at 1 and 2 months postoperatively, using a PIXImus and DPXL densitometer. At 3 months postoperatively, all animals were killed, and ex vivo femur scans obtained. Distal femur bone loss was demonstrable by 1 month post-ovx using either densitometer. With the PIXImus, a 4-mm ROI demonstrated greater bone loss (p < 0.05) than an 8-mm ROI. Using the 4-mm ROI, similar amounts of bone loss were detected by the PIXImus and DPXL: 22.2% and 22.4%, respectively, at 2 months post-ovx. Total femur bone mineral content was overestimated by the PIXImus but highly correlated with the DPXL measurement (r = 0.988) and ash weight (r = 0.998). Given its comparability to standard DXA plus its rapid scan speed and portability, the PIXImus is useful in evaluating ovx-induced osteopenia in rats.
R Eastell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of rates of bone loss from the spine measured using two manufacturers Densitometers
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2009Co-Authors: N F A Peel, R EastellAbstract:: Measurements of bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (LS-BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), made using different manufacturers' Densitometers, differ by approximately 15%. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of bone loss from the lumbar spine measured using two manufacturers' Densitometers. LS-BMD (vertebrae L2-L4) was measured using both a Lunar DPX and a Hologic QDR 1000/W in 17 postmenopausal women at baseline and 2 years. The mean rate of change of LS-BMD made using the two Densitometers did not differ (DPX -0.54% per year; QDR -0.17% per year). although rates of change of LS-BMD measured using the two Densitometers correlated (r = 0.47, p = 0.05), the variance of the rates of loss differed such that, in individual subjects, the difference between the rates of loss of LS-BMD, measured using the two Densitometers, was related to the average rate of loss (r = 0.61, p = 0.009). For both Densitometers, as bone mineral content (BMC) increased, the measured area also increased, leading to an underestimate of change in bone mineral density (BMD). This relation differed between the two Densitometers such that the change in BMD was underestimated to a greater extent by QDR. We conclude that in the context of multicenter studies it may not be possible to directly combine data on the rate of bone loss acquired using different manufacturers' Densitometers.
Tuan V Nguyen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
discordance of longitudinal changes in bone density between Densitometers
Bone, 2007Co-Authors: Steven A Frost, Nguyen D Nguyen, John A Eisman, Tuan V NguyenAbstract:Abstract This study examined the concordance in BMD measurement and longitudinal change in BMD between the GE Lunar Prodigy and GE Lunar DPX. Even though a high concordance between the Densitometers was observed on a single measurement occasion, a significant discordance in longitudinal changes in BMD was observed. Introduction Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The present study examined the concordance in BMD measurement and longitudinal change in BMD between GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX. Methods BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck was measured in 135 individuals (47 men and 88 women, mean age 73 ± 9 years) using both GE Lunar DPX and Prodigy Densitometers at baseline. In this group, 56 individuals (22 men and 34 women) had repeated BMD measurements using the DPX and Prodigy during a subsequent follow-up visit (average duration: 2.2 years). Results For a single BMD measurement, the coefficient of concordance between the Prodigy and DPX was greater than 0.98 at the lumbar spine and 0.96 at the femoral neck, with the slope of linear regression being approximately 1.0. During the period of follow-up, the lumbar spine BMD decreased by − 0.5% (S.D. 1.8%) when measured by DPX, which was significantly different ( p = 0.002) from the change measured by Prodigy (mean change = 0, S.D. 2.0%). However, there was no significant difference ( p = 0.95) in the rate of change in femoral neck BMD measured by DPX (mean = − 1.6%, S.D. = 2.9) and Prodigy (mean = − 1%, S.D. = 1.8%). The correlation in rates of BMD change between Prodigy and DPX was 0.63 at the lumbar spine and 0.52 at the femoral neck. Simulation analysis showed that the theoretical maximum correlation in rates of BMD change between Prodigy and DPX was 0.71. Conclusions Despite both Densitometers being highly concordant in a single BMD measurement, discordance in the assessment of BMD changes between the Prodigy and DPX Densitometers was observed. These findings have implications regarding the assessment of response to therapy in a multi-centre setting when different Densitometers are used.
John A Eisman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
discordance of longitudinal changes in bone density between Densitometers
Bone, 2007Co-Authors: Steven A Frost, Nguyen D Nguyen, John A Eisman, Tuan V NguyenAbstract:Abstract This study examined the concordance in BMD measurement and longitudinal change in BMD between the GE Lunar Prodigy and GE Lunar DPX. Even though a high concordance between the Densitometers was observed on a single measurement occasion, a significant discordance in longitudinal changes in BMD was observed. Introduction Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The present study examined the concordance in BMD measurement and longitudinal change in BMD between GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX. Methods BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck was measured in 135 individuals (47 men and 88 women, mean age 73 ± 9 years) using both GE Lunar DPX and Prodigy Densitometers at baseline. In this group, 56 individuals (22 men and 34 women) had repeated BMD measurements using the DPX and Prodigy during a subsequent follow-up visit (average duration: 2.2 years). Results For a single BMD measurement, the coefficient of concordance between the Prodigy and DPX was greater than 0.98 at the lumbar spine and 0.96 at the femoral neck, with the slope of linear regression being approximately 1.0. During the period of follow-up, the lumbar spine BMD decreased by − 0.5% (S.D. 1.8%) when measured by DPX, which was significantly different ( p = 0.002) from the change measured by Prodigy (mean change = 0, S.D. 2.0%). However, there was no significant difference ( p = 0.95) in the rate of change in femoral neck BMD measured by DPX (mean = − 1.6%, S.D. = 2.9) and Prodigy (mean = − 1%, S.D. = 1.8%). The correlation in rates of BMD change between Prodigy and DPX was 0.63 at the lumbar spine and 0.52 at the femoral neck. Simulation analysis showed that the theoretical maximum correlation in rates of BMD change between Prodigy and DPX was 0.71. Conclusions Despite both Densitometers being highly concordant in a single BMD measurement, discordance in the assessment of BMD changes between the Prodigy and DPX Densitometers was observed. These findings have implications regarding the assessment of response to therapy in a multi-centre setting when different Densitometers are used.