Sample size requirements for bone density precision assessments and effect on patient categorization: A Monte Carlo simulation study

被引:1
作者
Moayyeri, Alireza
Sadatsafavi, Molisen
Leslie, William D.
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Dept Med, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[2] Vancover Coastal Hlth Inst, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Evaluat, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ Cambridge, Inst Publ Hlth, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge, England
关键词
bone densitometry; dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; osteoporosis; precision; sample size;
D O I
10.1016/j.bone.2007.07.012
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
A sample size of 30 degrees of freedom (df) for bone mineral density (BMD) precision studies may be insufficient for reliably categorizing change. Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate the effect of precision study sample size on identifying change in clinical patients. Least significant change (LSC) from 198 spine and 193 total hip scan-pairs was used to categorize change for 1420 patients undergoing BMD monitoring. Relative to this reference change fraction (RCF), LSC limits were identified that gave specified deviations from the RCF (-25% to +25%). Confidence limits (95% and 80%) for these LSC values (5 to 500 df) were estimated using 'bootstrap' samplings. A sample size providing 140 df is needed to avoid overdetecting spine change by 5% and 150 df to avoid underdetecting spine change by 5% with 95% confidence limits. A sample size of 30 df resulted in up to a 12.5% overdetection and 10.0% underdetection of spine or hip change based upon 95% confidence limits. In conclusion, assessing the effect of precision study sample size on classifying change in monitored patients is an important element of the precision assessment that is neglected in current recommendations. sample sizes larger than 30 df are required if low levels of categorization error are to be achieved. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:679 / 684
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Importance of precision in bone density measurements
    Bonnick, SL
    Johnston, CC
    Kleerekoper, M
    Lindsay, R
    Miller, P
    Sherwood, L
    Siris, E
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2001, 4 (02) : 105 - 110
  • [2] QUALITY-CONTROL OF DXA INSTRUMENTS IN MULTICENTER TRIALS
    FAULKNER, KG
    MCCLUNG, MR
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1995, 5 (04) : 218 - 227
  • [3] ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF PRECISION ERRORS - HOW TO MEASURE THE REPRODUCIBILITY OF BONE DENSITOMETRY TECHNIQUES
    GLUER, CC
    BLAKE, G
    LU, Y
    BLUNT, BA
    JERGAS, M
    GENANT, HK
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1995, 5 (04) : 262 - 270
  • [4] Risk factors for longitudinal bone loss in elderly men and women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study
    Hannan, MT
    Felson, DT
    Dawson-Hughes, B
    Tucker, KL
    Cupples, LA
    Wilson, PWF
    Kiel, DP
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, 2000, 15 (04) : 710 - 720
  • [5] Precision error of fan-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry scans at spine, hip, and forearm
    Henzell, S
    Dhaliwal, S
    Pontifex, R
    Gill, F
    Price, R
    Retallack, R
    Prince, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2000, 3 (04) : 359 - 364
  • [6] Lenchik Leon, 2002, J Clin Densitom, V5 Suppl, pS29, DOI 10.1385/JCD:5:3S:S29
  • [7] Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring
    Leslie, W. D.
    Moayyeri, A.
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2006, 17 (11) : 1673 - 1680
  • [8] Construction and validation of a population-based bone densitometry database
    Leslie, WD
    Caetano, PA
    MacWilliam, LR
    Finlayson, GS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2005, 8 (01) : 25 - 30
  • [9] Bone density monitoring with the total hip site
    Leslie, WD
    Ward, LM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2004, 7 (03) : 269 - 274
  • [10] Establishing a regional bone density program - Lessons from the Manitoba experience
    Leslie, WD
    Metge, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2003, 6 (03) : 275 - 282