Discovery A和Stratos DR密度计用于评估全身和局部骨矿物质密度和身体成分的比较

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Laurent Maïmoun, Krishna Kunal Mahadea, Sandrine Alonso, Thierry Chevallier, Pierre-Olivier Kotzki, Thibault Mura, Vincent Boudousq
{"title":"Discovery A和Stratos DR密度计用于评估全身和局部骨矿物质密度和身体成分的比较","authors":"Laurent Maïmoun,&nbsp;Krishna Kunal Mahadea,&nbsp;Sandrine Alonso,&nbsp;Thierry Chevallier,&nbsp;Pierre-Olivier Kotzki,&nbsp;Thibault Mura,&nbsp;Vincent Boudousq","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The agreement between the Stratos DR and Discovery A densitometers was assessed for measurements of whole-body (WB) and regional fat mass (FM), fat-free soft tissue (FFST) and bone mineral density (BMD). Moreover, the precision of the Stratos DR was also evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty participants (35 women, 70%) were measured consecutively, once on the Discovery A and once on the Stratos DR. In a subgroup of participants (<i>n</i> = 29), two successive measurements with the Stratos DR were also performed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>FM, FFST and BMD measured with the two devices were highly correlated, with a coefficient of correlation ranging from 0.80 to 0.99. Bland-Altman analyses indicated significant bias between the two devices for all measurements. Thus, compared to the Discovery A, the Stratos DR underestimated WB BMD and WB and regional FM and FFST, with the exception of trunk FM and visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which were overestimated. Precision error for the Stratos DR, when expressed as root mean square-coefficient of variation (RMS-CV%) for FM, was 1.4% for WB, 3.0% for the gynoid and android regions, and 15.9% for VAT. The RMS-CV% for FFST was 1.0% for WB. The root mean square of standard deviation for WB BMD was 0.018 g/cm², corresponding to a 1.4% CV. The least significant change was 0.050 g/cm² (SD), and 4.0% was considered to be a significant biological change.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Differences between the Stratos DR and Discovery A measurements are significant and require the use of translational cross-calibration equations. For most of the BMD and body composition parameters, our results demonstrated good Stratos DR precision.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Discovery A and Stratos DR densitometers for assessing whole-body and regional bone mineral density and body composition\",\"authors\":\"Laurent Maïmoun,&nbsp;Krishna Kunal Mahadea,&nbsp;Sandrine Alonso,&nbsp;Thierry Chevallier,&nbsp;Pierre-Olivier Kotzki,&nbsp;Thibault Mura,&nbsp;Vincent Boudousq\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cpf.12836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The agreement between the Stratos DR and Discovery A densitometers was assessed for measurements of whole-body (WB) and regional fat mass (FM), fat-free soft tissue (FFST) and bone mineral density (BMD). Moreover, the precision of the Stratos DR was also evaluated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Fifty participants (35 women, 70%) were measured consecutively, once on the Discovery A and once on the Stratos DR. In a subgroup of participants (<i>n</i> = 29), two successive measurements with the Stratos DR were also performed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>FM, FFST and BMD measured with the two devices were highly correlated, with a coefficient of correlation ranging from 0.80 to 0.99. Bland-Altman analyses indicated significant bias between the two devices for all measurements. Thus, compared to the Discovery A, the Stratos DR underestimated WB BMD and WB and regional FM and FFST, with the exception of trunk FM and visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which were overestimated. Precision error for the Stratos DR, when expressed as root mean square-coefficient of variation (RMS-CV%) for FM, was 1.4% for WB, 3.0% for the gynoid and android regions, and 15.9% for VAT. The RMS-CV% for FFST was 1.0% for WB. The root mean square of standard deviation for WB BMD was 0.018 g/cm², corresponding to a 1.4% CV. The least significant change was 0.050 g/cm² (SD), and 4.0% was considered to be a significant biological change.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Differences between the Stratos DR and Discovery A measurements are significant and require the use of translational cross-calibration equations. For most of the BMD and body composition parameters, our results demonstrated good Stratos DR precision.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12836\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12836","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估Stratos DR和Discovery A密度计在测量全身(WB)和局部脂肪量(FM)、无脂肪软组织(FFST)和骨密度(BMD)方面的一致性。此外,还对Stratos DR的精度进行了评估。方法对50名参与者(35名女性,70%)进行了连续测量,一次在Discovery A上,另一次在Stratos DR上 = 29),还用Stratos DR进行了两次连续测量。结果两种装置测得的FM、FFST和BMD高度相关,相关系数在0.80-0.99之间。Bland-Altman分析表明,在所有测量中,两种设备之间存在显著偏差。因此,与发现A相比,Stratos DR低估了WB BMD和WB以及区域FM和FFST,躯干FM和内脏脂肪组织(VAT)除外,后者被高估了。Stratos DR的精度误差,当表示为FM的均方根变异系数(RMS-CV%)时,WB为1.4%,妇科和安卓系统为3.0%,VAT为15.9%。FFST的RMS-CV%为WB的1.0%。WB BMD标准偏差的均方根为0.018 g/cm²,对应1.4%的CV。最不显著的变化为0.050 g/cm²(SD),4.0%被认为是一个显著的生物学变化。结论Stratos DR和Discovery A测量结果之间存在显著差异,需要使用平移交叉校准方程。对于大多数BMD和身体成分参数,我们的结果表明Stratos DR具有良好的精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Discovery A and Stratos DR densitometers for assessing whole-body and regional bone mineral density and body composition

Purpose

The agreement between the Stratos DR and Discovery A densitometers was assessed for measurements of whole-body (WB) and regional fat mass (FM), fat-free soft tissue (FFST) and bone mineral density (BMD). Moreover, the precision of the Stratos DR was also evaluated.

Methods

Fifty participants (35 women, 70%) were measured consecutively, once on the Discovery A and once on the Stratos DR. In a subgroup of participants (n = 29), two successive measurements with the Stratos DR were also performed.

Results

FM, FFST and BMD measured with the two devices were highly correlated, with a coefficient of correlation ranging from 0.80 to 0.99. Bland-Altman analyses indicated significant bias between the two devices for all measurements. Thus, compared to the Discovery A, the Stratos DR underestimated WB BMD and WB and regional FM and FFST, with the exception of trunk FM and visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which were overestimated. Precision error for the Stratos DR, when expressed as root mean square-coefficient of variation (RMS-CV%) for FM, was 1.4% for WB, 3.0% for the gynoid and android regions, and 15.9% for VAT. The RMS-CV% for FFST was 1.0% for WB. The root mean square of standard deviation for WB BMD was 0.018 g/cm², corresponding to a 1.4% CV. The least significant change was 0.050 g/cm² (SD), and 4.0% was considered to be a significant biological change.

Conclusions

Differences between the Stratos DR and Discovery A measurements are significant and require the use of translational cross-calibration equations. For most of the BMD and body composition parameters, our results demonstrated good Stratos DR precision.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信