DXA、pQCT和HR-pQCT骨成像模式的精确性和一致性。

IF 3.4 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
JBMR Plus Pub Date : 2024-12-03 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae158
Jakub Mesinovic, Mícheál Ó Breasail, Lauren A Burt, Cat Shore-Lorenti, Roger Zebaze, Camelia Q E Lim, Zihui Ling, Peter R Ebeling, David Scott, Ayse Zengin
{"title":"DXA、pQCT和HR-pQCT骨成像模式的精确性和一致性。","authors":"Jakub Mesinovic, Mícheál Ó Breasail, Lauren A Burt, Cat Shore-Lorenti, Roger Zebaze, Camelia Q E Lim, Zihui Ling, Peter R Ebeling, David Scott, Ayse Zengin","doi":"10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Quantifying precision error for DXA, peripheral QCT (pQCT), and HR-pQCT is crucial for monitoring longitudinal changes in body composition and musculoskeletal outcomes. Agreement and associations between bone variables assessed using pQCT and second-generation HR-pQCT are unclear. This study aimed to determine the precision of, and agreement and associations between, bone variables assessed via DXA, pQCT, and second-generation HR-pQCT. Thirty older adults (mean age: 64.2 <b>±</b> 8.0 yr; women: 67%) were recruited. DXA scans were performed at the total hip, lumbar spine, and whole body. Distal (4%) and proximal (30%/33%/66%) skeletal sites at the radius and tibia were scanned with pQCT and/or HR-pQCT. Root-mean-squared coefficients of variation (%CV<sub>RMS</sub>) were calculated to define precision errors, and Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement between densitometric estimates. Pearson correlations and linear regression explored relationships between bone variables at different skeletal sites and proportional bias, respectively. Precision errors ranged between 0.55% and 1.6% for DXA, 0.40% and 4.8% for pQCT, and 0.13% and 30.7% for HR-pQCT. Systematic bias was identified between pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined radius and tibia volumetric BMD (vBMD) estimates (all <i>p</i><.001). Proportional bias was not observed between vBMD measures at any skeletal site (all <i>p</i>>.05). pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined total, trabecular, and cortical vBMD and estimates of bone strength at the radius and tibia were strongly correlated (all <i>p</i><.05). Precision error was low for most bone variables and within the expected range for all imaging modalities. We observed significant systematic bias, but no proportional bias, between pQCT- and second-generation HR-pQCT-determined vBMD estimates at the radius and tibia. Nevertheless, measures of bone density and strength were strongly correlated at all skeletal sites. These findings suggest that although bone density and strength estimates from both imaging modalities are not interchangeable, they are strongly related and likely have similar fracture prediction capabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14611,"journal":{"name":"JBMR Plus","volume":"9 2","pages":"ziae158"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bone imaging modality precision and agreement between DXA, pQCT, and HR-pQCT.\",\"authors\":\"Jakub Mesinovic, Mícheál Ó Breasail, Lauren A Burt, Cat Shore-Lorenti, Roger Zebaze, Camelia Q E Lim, Zihui Ling, Peter R Ebeling, David Scott, Ayse Zengin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Quantifying precision error for DXA, peripheral QCT (pQCT), and HR-pQCT is crucial for monitoring longitudinal changes in body composition and musculoskeletal outcomes. Agreement and associations between bone variables assessed using pQCT and second-generation HR-pQCT are unclear. This study aimed to determine the precision of, and agreement and associations between, bone variables assessed via DXA, pQCT, and second-generation HR-pQCT. Thirty older adults (mean age: 64.2 <b>±</b> 8.0 yr; women: 67%) were recruited. DXA scans were performed at the total hip, lumbar spine, and whole body. Distal (4%) and proximal (30%/33%/66%) skeletal sites at the radius and tibia were scanned with pQCT and/or HR-pQCT. Root-mean-squared coefficients of variation (%CV<sub>RMS</sub>) were calculated to define precision errors, and Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement between densitometric estimates. Pearson correlations and linear regression explored relationships between bone variables at different skeletal sites and proportional bias, respectively. Precision errors ranged between 0.55% and 1.6% for DXA, 0.40% and 4.8% for pQCT, and 0.13% and 30.7% for HR-pQCT. Systematic bias was identified between pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined radius and tibia volumetric BMD (vBMD) estimates (all <i>p</i><.001). Proportional bias was not observed between vBMD measures at any skeletal site (all <i>p</i>>.05). pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined total, trabecular, and cortical vBMD and estimates of bone strength at the radius and tibia were strongly correlated (all <i>p</i><.05). Precision error was low for most bone variables and within the expected range for all imaging modalities. We observed significant systematic bias, but no proportional bias, between pQCT- and second-generation HR-pQCT-determined vBMD estimates at the radius and tibia. Nevertheless, measures of bone density and strength were strongly correlated at all skeletal sites. These findings suggest that although bone density and strength estimates from both imaging modalities are not interchangeable, they are strongly related and likely have similar fracture prediction capabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBMR Plus\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"ziae158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBMR Plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBMR Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

量化DXA、外周QCT (pQCT)和HR-pQCT的精度误差对于监测身体成分和肌肉骨骼结果的纵向变化至关重要。使用pQCT和第二代HR-pQCT评估骨骼变量之间的一致性和相关性尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定通过DXA、pQCT和第二代HR-pQCT评估的骨变量的准确性、一致性和相关性。老年人30例,平均年龄64.2±8.0岁;女性:67%)被招募。在全髋、腰椎和全身进行DXA扫描。使用pQCT和/或HR-pQCT扫描桡骨和胫骨远端(4%)和近端(30%/33%/66%)骨骼部位。计算均方根变异系数(%CVRMS)来定义精度误差,并用Bland-Altman图评估密度估计值之间的一致性。Pearson相关性和线性回归分别探讨了不同骨骼位置和比例偏差的骨骼变量之间的关系。DXA的精度误差为0.55% ~ 1.6%,pQCT为0.40% ~ 4.8%,HR-pQCT为0.13% ~ 30.7%。在pQCT和hr -pQCT测定的桡骨和胫骨体积骨密度(vBMD)估计值之间发现了系统偏差(所有pp均为0.05)。pQCT和hr -pQCT测定的总vBMD、小梁vBMD和皮质vBMD与桡骨和胫骨骨强度的估计值密切相关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bone imaging modality precision and agreement between DXA, pQCT, and HR-pQCT.

Quantifying precision error for DXA, peripheral QCT (pQCT), and HR-pQCT is crucial for monitoring longitudinal changes in body composition and musculoskeletal outcomes. Agreement and associations between bone variables assessed using pQCT and second-generation HR-pQCT are unclear. This study aimed to determine the precision of, and agreement and associations between, bone variables assessed via DXA, pQCT, and second-generation HR-pQCT. Thirty older adults (mean age: 64.2 ± 8.0 yr; women: 67%) were recruited. DXA scans were performed at the total hip, lumbar spine, and whole body. Distal (4%) and proximal (30%/33%/66%) skeletal sites at the radius and tibia were scanned with pQCT and/or HR-pQCT. Root-mean-squared coefficients of variation (%CVRMS) were calculated to define precision errors, and Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement between densitometric estimates. Pearson correlations and linear regression explored relationships between bone variables at different skeletal sites and proportional bias, respectively. Precision errors ranged between 0.55% and 1.6% for DXA, 0.40% and 4.8% for pQCT, and 0.13% and 30.7% for HR-pQCT. Systematic bias was identified between pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined radius and tibia volumetric BMD (vBMD) estimates (all p<.001). Proportional bias was not observed between vBMD measures at any skeletal site (all p>.05). pQCT- and HR-pQCT-determined total, trabecular, and cortical vBMD and estimates of bone strength at the radius and tibia were strongly correlated (all p<.05). Precision error was low for most bone variables and within the expected range for all imaging modalities. We observed significant systematic bias, but no proportional bias, between pQCT- and second-generation HR-pQCT-determined vBMD estimates at the radius and tibia. Nevertheless, measures of bone density and strength were strongly correlated at all skeletal sites. These findings suggest that although bone density and strength estimates from both imaging modalities are not interchangeable, they are strongly related and likely have similar fracture prediction capabilities.

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
JBMR Plus
JBMR Plus Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
103
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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