Park Ae Ja, Choi Jee-Hye, Kang Hyun, Park Ki Jeong, Kim Ha Young, Kim Seo Hwa, Kim Deog-Yoon, Park Seung-Hwan, Ha Yong-Chan
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Bone Metab. 2015 May;22(2):45-9. doi: 10.11005/jbm.2015.22.2.45. Epub 2015 May 31.
Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is known to standard equipment for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Different results of BMD measurement using a number of different types of devices are difficult to use clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate discrepancy and standardizations of DXA devices from three manufactures using a European Spine Phantom (ESP).
We calculated the accuracy and precision of 36 DXA devices from three manufacturers (10 Hologic, 16 Lunar, and 10 Osteosys) using a ESP (semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each equipment without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing BMD (g/cm(2)) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd).
Lunar devices were, on average, 22%, 8.3%, and 5% overestimation for low (L1) BMD values, medium (L2), and high (L3) BMD values. Hologic devices were, on average, 6% overestimation for L1 BMD, and 5% and 6.2% underestimation for L2 and L3 BMD values. Osteosys devices was, on average, 12.7% (0.063 g/cm(2)), 6.3% (0.062 g/cm(2)), and 5% (0.075 g/cm(2)) underestimation for L1, L2, and L3, respectively. The mean CVsd for L1-L3 BMD were 0.01%, 0.78%, and 2.46% for Lunar, Hologic, and Osteosys devices respectively.
The BMD comparison in this study demonstrates that BMD result of three different devices are significant different between three devices. Differences of BMD between three devices are necessary to BMD standardization.
尽管双能X线吸收法（DXA）是已知的用于骨密度（BMD）测量的标准设备。使用多种不同类型设备进行BMD测量的不同结果在临床实践中难以应用。本研究的目的是使用欧洲脊柱模型（ESP）评估来自三个制造商的DXA设备的差异和标准化情况。
我们使用一个ESP（半人体模型）计算了来自三个制造商（10台Hologic、16台Lunar和10台Osteosys）的36台DXA设备的准确性和精密度。在每台设备上对ESP进行5次测量，无需重新定位。通过将每台设备测量的BMD（g/cm²）值与模型的实际值进行比较来评估准确性。通过变异系数（CVsd）评估精密度。
Lunar设备对于低（L1）BMD值、中（L2）BMD值和高（L3）BMD值平均分别高估22%、8.3%和5%。Hologic设备对于L1 BMD平均高估6%，对于L2和L3 BMD值分别低估5%和6.2%。Osteosys设备对于L1、L2和L3平均分别低估12.7%（0.063 g/cm²）、6.3%（0.062 g/cm²）和5%（0.075 g/cm²）。Lunar、Hologic和Osteosys设备L1 - L3 BMD的平均CVsd分别为0.01%、0.78%和2.46%。
本研究中的BMD比较表明，三种不同设备的BMD结果在三种设备之间存在显著差异。三种设备之间的BMD差异对于BMD标准化是必要的。
