Journal of Radiation Industry (방사선산업학회지)

Korean Society of Radiation Industry (한국방사선산업학회)
권호 표지

Usefulness of Manual Analysis of Bone Mineral Density Using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry

이중에너지엑스선흡수기(Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry: DXA)를 이용한 골밀도검사 결과분석에서 수동분석법의 유용성 평가

  • Kim, Eun Hye (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Kwak, Jong Gil (Dpartment of Public Health and Medicine, Dongshin University Graduate School) ;
  • Kim, Ho Sung (Department of Radiological Science, Shinhan University)
  • 김은혜 (서울아산병원 핵의학과) ;
  • 곽종길 (동신대학교 보건의료학과) ;
  • 김호성 (신한대학교 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2018.09.27
  • Accepted : 2018.11.27
  • Published : 2018.12.31

⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The results of bone mineral density analysis using DXA were compared between automatic and manual methods. The purpose of this paper is to verify the range of errors of each analysis method in the same patient and select a proper method to minimize errors. Comparisons between automatic and manual analysis methods were made using BMD, BMC and AREA. Basal and follow up examinations were performed with the patients of normal, osteopenia and osteoporosis. In the basal examinations, the precision errors between automatic and manual method showed 1.9% in normal, 3.1% in osteopenia and 3.8% in osteoporosis. In case of follow up studies, the precision errors between automatic and manual method showed 2.3% in normal, 3.2% in osteopenia and 3.5% in osteoporosis. BMC and AREA also showed a tendency to increase precision errors on osteopenia and osteoporosis. Therefore, a manual method would be a better option to minimize errors in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Keywords

References

  1. Bouxsein ML and Seeman E. 2009. Quantifying the material and structural determinants of bone strength. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 23:741-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2009.09.008
  2. Fenton JJ, Robbins JA, Amarnath AL and Franks P. 2016. Osteoporosis overtreatment in a regional health care system. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:391-393.
  3. International Society for Clinical Densitometry: Accessed 2017. 2017 ISCD Official Positions. http://www.iscd.org/officialpositions/2017-iscd-official-positions-adult/. The new official positions of the ISCD as updated in 2017.
  4. Kim TY and Schafer AL. 2016. Variability in DXA Reporting and other challenges in osteoporosis evaluation. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:393-395. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7550
  5. Lewiecki EM, Watts NB, McClung MR, Petak SM, Bachrach LK, Shepherd JA and Downs RW Jr. 2004. Official positions of the international society for clinical densitometry. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89(8):3651-3655. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2004-0124
  6. Lewiecki EM, Binkley N and Petak SM. 2006. DXA quality matters. J. Clin. Densitom. 9:388-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2006.07.002
  7. Lewiecki EM and Lane NE. 2008. Common mistakes in the clinical use of bone mineral density testing. Nat. Clin. Pract. Rheumatol. 4:667-674. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0928
  8. Messina C, Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM, D'Alonzo NK, Di Leo G, Papini GD, Ulivieri FM and Sardanelli F. 2015. Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Eur. Radiol. 25:1504-1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3509-y
  9. Watts NB. 2004. Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos. Int. 15:847-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1681-7