Importance of cross-calibration when replacing DXA Scanners: QDR4500W and Discovery Wi

Margaret K. Covey, Donald L. Smith, Jean K. Berry, Eileen Hacker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between 2 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (Hologic QDR4500W, Discovery Wi). The average age of the sample (n = 42) was 50.4 (SD = 9.9) years old and 27.1 (SD = 6.1) kg/m2 body mass index. Four scans were performed with each subject (2 on each device) over ∼3 weeks. Whole body, proximal femur, and spine scans were performed at each visit. Major variables were whole body bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass, and nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral density (BMD) of total proximal femur, femoral neck, total spine. Bland and Altman plots assessed the extent of the agreement. Regression analysis was used to develop correction equations if indicated. Both devices demonstrated good precision for whole body composition and BMD of central sites (<1% different). Interdevice agreement was acceptable for BMD of central sites (<1% different), but there were systematic differences for whole body composition between the 2 devices. It was concluded that when replacing an existing scanner with a new model, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of scan data, especially for whole body composition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)155-170
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Nursing Measurement
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bone Density
Calibration
Body Composition
Femur Neck
Equipment and Supplies
Spine
Femur
Body Mass Index
Fats
Regression Analysis
X-Rays

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • Body composition
  • Bone mineral density
  • DXA cross-calibration
  • Precision

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Importance of cross-calibration when replacing DXA Scanners : QDR4500W and Discovery Wi. / Covey, Margaret K.; Smith, Donald L.; Berry, Jean K.; Hacker, Eileen.

In: Journal of Nursing Measurement, Vol. 16, No. 3, 01.12.2008, p. 155-170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Covey, Margaret K. ; Smith, Donald L. ; Berry, Jean K. ; Hacker, Eileen. / Importance of cross-calibration when replacing DXA Scanners : QDR4500W and Discovery Wi. In: Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2008 ; Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 155-170.
@article{de8d4bb4685a4c8b8df3c6ee193f7836,
title = "Importance of cross-calibration when replacing DXA Scanners: QDR4500W and Discovery Wi",
abstract = "The aim of the study was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between 2 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (Hologic QDR4500W, Discovery Wi). The average age of the sample (n = 42) was 50.4 (SD = 9.9) years old and 27.1 (SD = 6.1) kg/m2 body mass index. Four scans were performed with each subject (2 on each device) over ∼3 weeks. Whole body, proximal femur, and spine scans were performed at each visit. Major variables were whole body bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass, and nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral density (BMD) of total proximal femur, femoral neck, total spine. Bland and Altman plots assessed the extent of the agreement. Regression analysis was used to develop correction equations if indicated. Both devices demonstrated good precision for whole body composition and BMD of central sites (<1{\%} different). Interdevice agreement was acceptable for BMD of central sites (<1{\%} different), but there were systematic differences for whole body composition between the 2 devices. It was concluded that when replacing an existing scanner with a new model, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of scan data, especially for whole body composition.",
keywords = "Accuracy, Body composition, Bone mineral density, DXA cross-calibration, Precision",
author = "Covey, {Margaret K.} and Smith, {Donald L.} and Berry, {Jean K.} and Eileen Hacker",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1891/1061-3749.16.3.155",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "155--170",
journal = "Journal of Nursing Measurement",
issn = "1061-3749",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Importance of cross-calibration when replacing DXA Scanners

T2 - QDR4500W and Discovery Wi

AU - Covey, Margaret K.

AU - Smith, Donald L.

AU - Berry, Jean K.

AU - Hacker, Eileen

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - The aim of the study was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between 2 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (Hologic QDR4500W, Discovery Wi). The average age of the sample (n = 42) was 50.4 (SD = 9.9) years old and 27.1 (SD = 6.1) kg/m2 body mass index. Four scans were performed with each subject (2 on each device) over ∼3 weeks. Whole body, proximal femur, and spine scans were performed at each visit. Major variables were whole body bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass, and nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral density (BMD) of total proximal femur, femoral neck, total spine. Bland and Altman plots assessed the extent of the agreement. Regression analysis was used to develop correction equations if indicated. Both devices demonstrated good precision for whole body composition and BMD of central sites (<1% different). Interdevice agreement was acceptable for BMD of central sites (<1% different), but there were systematic differences for whole body composition between the 2 devices. It was concluded that when replacing an existing scanner with a new model, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of scan data, especially for whole body composition.

AB - The aim of the study was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between 2 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (Hologic QDR4500W, Discovery Wi). The average age of the sample (n = 42) was 50.4 (SD = 9.9) years old and 27.1 (SD = 6.1) kg/m2 body mass index. Four scans were performed with each subject (2 on each device) over ∼3 weeks. Whole body, proximal femur, and spine scans were performed at each visit. Major variables were whole body bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass, and nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral density (BMD) of total proximal femur, femoral neck, total spine. Bland and Altman plots assessed the extent of the agreement. Regression analysis was used to develop correction equations if indicated. Both devices demonstrated good precision for whole body composition and BMD of central sites (<1% different). Interdevice agreement was acceptable for BMD of central sites (<1% different), but there were systematic differences for whole body composition between the 2 devices. It was concluded that when replacing an existing scanner with a new model, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of scan data, especially for whole body composition.

KW - Accuracy

KW - Body composition

KW - Bone mineral density

KW - DXA cross-calibration

KW - Precision

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58249098735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58249098735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1891/1061-3749.16.3.155

DO - 10.1891/1061-3749.16.3.155

M3 - Article

C2 - 19886469

AN - SCOPUS:58249098735

VL - 16

SP - 155

EP - 170

JO - Journal of Nursing Measurement

JF - Journal of Nursing Measurement

SN - 1061-3749

IS - 3

ER -