Jessica L Puranda, Chris M Edwards, Vinicius M R Weber, Mohamed Aboudlal, Kevin Semeniuk, Kristi B Adamo
{"title":"Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density.","authors":"Jessica L Puranda, Chris M Edwards, Vinicius M R Weber, Mohamed Aboudlal, Kevin Semeniuk, Kristi B Adamo","doi":"10.1002/ca.24187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty-two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland-Altman plots, t-tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter-rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 [0.785; 0.989], p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA (r = 0.382 [0.121; 0.593], p = 0.0052). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated BMD (-0.0569 g/cm<sup>2</sup>), this was confirmed with a significant paired t-test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed (0.4744 × UltraScan650™ + 0.4170) to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland-Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t-test (p = 0.9978). Pearson's correlation revealed a significant relationship (r = -0.771 [-0.862; -0.631], p < 0.0001) between adjusted UltraScan650™-DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting given the linear transformation is employed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50687,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Anatomy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.24187","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty-two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland-Altman plots, t-tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter-rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 [0.785; 0.989], p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA (r = 0.382 [0.121; 0.593], p = 0.0052). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated BMD (-0.0569 g/cm2), this was confirmed with a significant paired t-test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed (0.4744 × UltraScan650™ + 0.4170) to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland-Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t-test (p = 0.9978). Pearson's correlation revealed a significant relationship (r = -0.771 [-0.862; -0.631], p < 0.0001) between adjusted UltraScan650™-DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting given the linear transformation is employed.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Anatomy is the Official Journal of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists and the British Association of Clinical Anatomists. The goal of Clinical Anatomy is to provide a medium for the exchange of current information between anatomists and clinicians. This journal embraces anatomy in all its aspects as applied to medical practice. Furthermore, the journal assists physicians and other health care providers in keeping abreast of new methodologies for patient management and informs educators of new developments in clinical anatomy and teaching techniques. Clinical Anatomy publishes original and review articles of scientific, clinical, and educational interest. Papers covering the application of anatomic principles to the solution of clinical problems and/or the application of clinical observations to expand anatomic knowledge are welcomed.