• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.12 no.7
• /
• pp.833-844
• /
• 2018

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry is mainly used as an X-ray test method. For equipment manufactured GE and Hologic, cross-calibration analyses (CCA) of machines from the same manufacturer and between units from different manufacturers have been conducted, but the CCA of equipment manufactured in Korea are inadequate. Through CCA, we present a formula of the intersections between the Korean medical equipment company (KEC) with GE and Hologic manufactured DXA, and among the KEC DXA. The CCA was conducted for the European Spine Phantom on DXA from four KEC and three global medical equipment company (GEC) manufacturers. We compared bone mineral density (BMD) values and calculated the CCA equation by linear regression analysis. The standard-deviations (SD) of the BMD values were highest for the Dexxum T for the low, medium, and high spine, which were 0.030, 0.029, and 0.037, respectively. The smallest SD in the low and medium vertebrae were 0.005 and 0.004 for the Horizon Ci, respectively, and 0.005 for the Osteo Pro Max in the high vertebrae. Based on the intersection equations of the KEC DXA established in this study, CCA of various KEC DXA should be established for more accurate follow-up of BMD tests in clinical environments.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.527-534
• /
• 2016

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is the most widely used technical instrument for evaluating bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) in patients of all ages. In 2016, DEXA devices operating is 5617 in Korea. In this study we investigated the quality of management practices survey for DEXA equipment and we analyzed it. We got a survey response rate of 12.6%. Accurate bone densitometry test is used data for estimation a patient's risk of fracture. However, improper bone densitometry will increase the possibility of causing a false positive. Therefore. it is essential to use the proper aids accurate bone densitomenty to be performed, and the quality control of the device to reduce the error factor of the tester through the training to reduce error for the device and the attitude.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.40-45
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Recently, the performance of the X-ray tube was very much improved by the power generation of the technology. However, the overload of equipment is occurred by the increment of the equipment operating time according to the increment of the examination number of cases. The X-ray dose can change by heat occurrence of the X-ray tube due to this. Moreover, the change of the bone mineral density value is possible to occur. Therefore, We tries to whether the change of the bone mineral density value of each equipment according to the difference of the examination number of cases and operating time occur or not. Materials and Methods: The BMD value was measured by the Aluminum Spine Phantom and the European Spine Phantom in each equipment, in order to find out about the difference of the time general classification bone mineral density value by using the Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. And after scanning each phantom by using X-ray dose meter (Unfors Mult-O-Meter), a dose was measured by the same condition. As to, an average and standard deviation were found and the change of each equipment much BMD value was compared and it evaluated. Results: $Mean{\pm}SD$ of each equipment by using the Aluminum Spine Phantom, A equipment was $1.174{\pm}0.002$, $1.171{\pm}0.005$, $1.173{\pm}0.005$, B equipment was $1.186{\pm}0.003$, $1.187{\pm}0.003$, $1.185{\pm}0.003$, C equipment was $1.180{\pm}0.003$, $1.182{\pm}0.004$, $1.183{\pm}0.002$, D equipment was $1.188{\pm}0.004$, $1.185{\pm}0.003$, $1.185{\pm}0.004$. By using the European Spine Phantom, A equipment was $1.143{\pm}0.006$, $1.153{\pm}0.009$, $1.161{\pm}0.003$, B equipment was $1.134{\pm}0.004$, $1.13{\pm}0.008$, $1.127{\pm}0.015$, C equipment was $1.143{\pm}0.006$, $1.134{\pm}0.01$, $1.133{\pm}0.006$, D equipment was $1.14{\pm}0.001$, $1.122{\pm}0.002$, $1.131{\pm}0.008$, altogether included in the normal range. Conclusion: There was no significant change of the BMD value of using a phantom by time zones. Therefore, if the quality control is made to use the extent management method of the equipment for beginning in the present application, the reliability of the BMD equipment will be able to be enhanced.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.48 no.7
• /
• pp.696-700
• /
• 2005

Propose : Body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis(BIA) is a very useful method of analysing body composition. BIA is non-invasive, inexpensive, nonhazaedous and reproducible technique. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between body composition measurement by BIA and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry(DEXA). Methods : Data was examined in 100 children(male 58; female 42), who visited Pusan National Hospital. Weight(kg) and height(cm) were measured, and body compositions were analyzed with fat mass, lean body mass, body fat percent by BIA and DEXA methods. Results : Comparison of the DEXA and BIA methods showed highly statistically significant correlations in measurement of human body composition(fat mass, lean body mass, body fat percent). Conclusion : BIA should be considered as the method of choice in measurement of human body composition, since it's non-invasive, reliable, rapid, nonhazaedous and inexpensive, using portable equipment.

• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.59-62
• /
• 2011

In this experiment, how DEXA(Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry) bone mineral density was measured using the equipment. In order to maintain the same measurement conditions, bone mineral density measurements of 10 cm thick phantom, with an actual patient at a point when examining the same conditions(100 kVp, 1 mA) and then out to the five doses of radiation and its average was calculated by dividing measured. X-ray dose rate measured at the Research Institute, Sword of the gamma survey meters calibrated MEDCOM Ltd. (Inspector GM counter tube) was used, calibration factor is 1.15. On a horizontal plane around the patient, depending on the distance was significantly reduced dose rate. In addition, orientation $0^{\circ}$ head end was higher in the direction of the highest dose rate, $0^{\circ}$ $180^{\circ}$ direction from the direction towards the higher dose rate reduced to some extent in the direction of all the $120^{\circ}$ were able to identify.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.95-98
• /
• 2023

Purpose: The precision error of a bone density meter reflects the equipment and reproducibility of results by an examiner. Precision error values can be expressed as coefficient of variation (CV), CV%, and root mean square-SD (RMS-SD). The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) currently recommends using RMS-SD as the precision error value. When a 95% confidence interval is applied, the least significant change (LSC) value is calculated by multiplying the precision error value by 2.77. Exceeding the LSC value reflects a significant difference in measured bone density. Therefore, the LSC value of a bone density equipment is an essential factor for accurately determining a patient's bone density. Accordingly, we aimed to calculate the LSC value of a bone density meter (Lunar iDXA, GE) and compare it with the value recommended by the ISCD. We also assessed whether the value measured by the iDXA equipment was below the LSC value recommended by ISCD. Material and Methods: The bone densities of the lumbar spine and thighs of 30 participants were measured twice, and the LSC values were calculated using the precision calculation tool provided by the ISCD (http://www.iscd.org). To check the reproducibility of the measurement, patients were asked to completely dismount from the equipment after the first measurement; the patient was then repositioned before proceeding with the second measurement. Results: The LSC values derived using the CV% values recommended by the ISCD were 5.3% for the lumbar spine and 5.0% for the thigh. The LSC values measured using our bone density equipment were 2.47% for the lumbar spine and 1.61% for the thigh. The LSC value using RMS-SD was 0.031 g/cm² for the lumbar spine and 0.017 g/cm² for the thigh. Conclusion: that the findings confirm that the CV% value measured using our bone density meter and the LSC value using RMS-SD were maintained very stably. This can be helpful for obtaining accurate measurements during bone density follow-up examinations.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.361-370
• /
• 2009

The image quality management of bone mineral density is the responsibility and duty of radiologists who carry out examinations. However, inaccurate conclusions due to lack of understanding and ignorance regarding the methodology of image quality management can be a fatal error to the patient. Therefore, objective of this paper is to understand proper image quality management and enumerate methods for examiners and patients, thereby ensuring the reliability of bone mineral density exams. The accuracy and precision of bone mineral density measurements must be at the highest level so that actual biological changes can be detected with even slight changes in bone mineral density. Accuracy and precision should be continuously preserved for image quality of machines. Those factors will contribute to ensure the reliability in bone mineral density exams. Proper equipment management or control methods are set with correcting equipment each morning and after image quality management, a phantom, recommended from the manufacturer, is used for ten to twenty-five measurements in search of a mean value with a permissible range of ${\pm}1.5%$ set as standard. There needs to be daily measurement inspections on the phantom or at least inspections three times a week in order to confirm the existence or nonexistence of changes in values in actual bone mineral density. in addition, bone mineral density measurements were evaluated and recorded following the rules of Shewhart control chart. This type of management has to be conducted for the installation and movement of equipment. For the management methods of inspectors, evaluation of the measurement precision was conducted by testing the reproducibility of the exact same figures without any real biological changes occurring during reinspection. Bone mineral density inspection was applied as the measurement method for patients either taking two measurements thirty times or three measurements fifteen times. An important point when taking measurements was after a measurement whether it was the second or third examination, it was required to descend from the table and then reascend. With a 95% confidence level, the precision error produced from the measurement bone mineral figures came to 2.77 times the minimum of the biological bone mineral density change. The value produced can be stated as the least significant change (LSC) and in the case the value is greater, it can be stated as a section of genuine biological change. From the initial inspection to equipment moving and shifter, management must be carried out and continued in order to achieve the effects. The enforcement of proper quality control of radiologists performing bone mineral density inspections which brings about the durability extensions of equipment and accurate results of calculations will help the assurance of reliable inspections.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2023

As the demand for bone mineral density testing increases in Korea, which is close to an aging society, it is necessary to evaluate the repeatability of equipment such as femur phantom other than l-spine for more accurate diagnosis. However, in clinical practice, it is often not possible to proceed such evaluation due to insufficient quality control conditions. Therefore, this study is to evaluate the usefulness of the femur phantom after fabricating the same using 3D printing technology. The femur phantom was output using GlowFill filament and FDM 3D printing type. Each phantom was repeatedly scaned 20 times to compare whether the existing l-spine phantom and the fabricated femur phantom were suitable as a phantom for quality control. Each time the seven researchers took three times, the location of the femur phantom was readjusted, and then scanned to confirm the error between the researchers. As a result of conducting repeatability evaluation using femur phantom, the coefficient of variation rate was 2%, which was within the minimum precision tolerance of 2.5%. The reproducibility between the researcher was also found to be suitable as the average coefficient of variation was 0.031 and the coefficient of variation rate was 3.1%, which was within the minimum precision error range of 5%. In conclusion, it is considered that the prospective attitude and usefulness of the femur phantom fabricated by 3D printing in clinical practice will be sufficient.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.17-23
• /
• 2008

Purpose : Because there is a difference depending on the environment as for an inspection equipment the important part of bone density scan and the precision/accuracy of a tester, the management of quality must be made systematically. The equipment failure caused by overload effect due to the aged equipment and the increase of a patient was made frequently. Thus, the replacement of equipment and additional purchases of new bonedensity equipment caused a compatibility problem in tracking patients. This study wants to know whether the clinical changes of patient's bonedensity can be accurately and precisely reflected when used it compatiblly like the existing equipment after equipment replacement and expansion. Materials and methods : Two equipments of GE Lunar Prodigy Advance(P1 and P2) and the Phantom HOLOGIC Spine Road(HSP) were used to measure equipment precision. Each device scans 20 times so that precision data was acquired from the phantom(Group 1). The precision of a tester was measured by shooting twice the same patient, every 15 members from each of the target equipment in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 2). In addition, the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data were made by scanning 20 times in each of the equipment using HSP, based on the data obtained from the management of quality using phantom(ASP) every morning (Group 3). The same patient was shot only once in one equipment alternately to make the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 4). Results : It is steady equipment according to daily Q.C Data with $0.996\;g/cm^2$, change value(%CV) 0.08. The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are ALP in Group 1(P1 : $1.064{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.190\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.061{\pm}0.003\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.192). The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are P1 : $1.187{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.164\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.198{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.163 in Group 2. The average error${\pm}$2SD and %CV are P1 - (spine: $0.001{\pm}0.03\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.94, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.019\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.96), P2 - (spine: $0.002{\pm}0.018\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.55, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.013\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.48) in Group 3. The average error${\pm}2SD$, %CV, and r value was spine : $0.006{\pm}0.024\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.86, r=0.995, Femur: $0{\pm}0.014\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.54, r=0.998 in Group 4. Conclusion: Both LUNAR ASP CV% and HOLOGIC Spine Phantom are included in the normal range of error of ${\pm}2%$ defined in ISCD. BMD measurement keeps a relatively constant value, so showing excellent repeatability. The Phantom has homogeneous characteristics, but it has limitations to reflect the clinical part including variations in patient's body weight or body fat. As a result, it is believed that quality control using Phantom will be useful to check mis-calibration of the equipment used. A value measured a patient two times with one equipment, and that of double-crossed two equipment are all included within 2SD Value in the Bland - Altman Graph compared results of Group 3 with Group 4. The r value of 0.99 or higher in Linear regression analysis(Regression Analysis) indicated high precision and correlation. Therefore, it revealed that two compatible equipment did not affect in tracking the patients. Regular testing equipment and capabilities of a tester, then appropriate calibration will have to be achieved in order to calculate confidential BMD.