Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanner mismatch in follow-up bone mineral density testing

被引:1
作者
Lee, K. [1 ,2 ]
Al Jumaily, K. [2 ]
Lin, M. [3 ,4 ]
Siminoski, K. [5 ,6 ]
Ye, C. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Med, Div Allergy & Immunol, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Dept Med, Div Core Internal Med, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[3] Alberta Hlth Serv, Data & Res Serv, Alberta SPOR Support Unit, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[4] Alberta Hlth Serv, Prov Res Data Serv, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[5] Univ Alberta, Dpartment Radiol & Diagnost Imaging, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[6] Univ Alberta, Div Endocrinol & Metab, Dept Med, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[7] Univ Alberta, Dept Med, Div Rheumatol, 13-103 Clin Sci Bldg,11350-83 Ave, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G3, Canada
关键词
DXA; Fracture risk assessment; General population studies; Osteoporosis; RADIOLOGISTS TECHNICAL STANDARDS; PSYCHOSOCIAL CONSEQUENCES; CANADIAN ASSOCIATION;
D O I
10.1007/s00198-022-06438-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Scanner mismatch occurs frequently with follow-up dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Nearly one-in-five follow-up DXA scans were conducted on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) and more than a quarter of patients who had a follow-up DXA scan had experienced scanner mismatch. Introduction Detecting significant changes in bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners relies on the least significant change (LSC). Results from two different DXA scanners can only be compared, albeit with decreased sensitivity for change, if the LSC between the two scanners has been directly determined through cross-calibration. Performing follow-up DXA scans on non-cross-calibrated scanners (scanner mismatch) has safety and economic implications. This study aims to determine the proportion of scanner mismatch occurring at a population level. Methods All patients who completed at least two DXA scans between 1 April 2009 and 31 December 2018 in the province of Alberta, Canada, were identified using population-based health services databases. Scanner mismatch was defined as a follow-up DXA scan completed on a DXA scanner that differed from and was not cross-calibrated to the previous DXA scanner. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess predictive factors that may contribute to scanner mismatch. Results A total of 264,866 patients with 470,641 follow-up DXA scans were identified. Scanner mismatch occurred in 18.9% of follow-up DXA scans; 28.7% of patients experienced at least one scanner mismatch. Longer duration between scans (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.24-1.26) and major osteoporotic fracture history before index scan (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) increased risk of scanner mismatch. Osteoporosis medication use before index scan (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.88-0.91), recency of follow-up scans (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-0.98), female sex (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00), and age at last scan (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00) were associated with lower risk of scanner mismatch. Conclusion Scanner mismatch is a common problem, occurring in one-in-five follow-up DXA scans and affecting more than a quarter of patients. Interventions to reduce this large proportion of scanner mismatch are necessary.
引用
收藏
页码:1981 / 1988
页数:8
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] Alberta Government, 2015, POPULATION DISTRIBUT
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2020, ALB HLTH SERV
  • [3] Long-Term Psychosocial Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammography
    Brodersen, John
    Siersma, Volkert Dirk
    [J]. ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2013, 11 (02) : 106 - 115
  • [4] Cross-Calibrated Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scanners Demonstrate Systematic Bias in Pediatric and Young Adult Females
    Dowthwaite, Jodi N.
    Dunsmore, Kristen A.
    Wang, Dongliang
    Rosenbaum, Paula F.
    Scerpella, Tamara A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2018, 21 (02) : 281 - 294
  • [5] Monitoring of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement in clinical practice
    El Maghraoui, Abdellah
    Achemlal, Lahsen
    Bezza, Ahmed
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2006, 9 (03) : 281 - 286
  • [6] Government of Canada, 2019, CANADAS HLTH CARE SY
  • [7] Relation between fractures and mortality: results from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study
    Ioannidis, George
    Papaioannou, Alexandra
    Hopman, Wilma M.
    Akhtar-Danesh, Noori
    Anastassiades, Tassos
    Pickard, Laura
    Kennedy, Courtney C.
    Prior, Jerilynn C.
    Olszynski, Wojciech P.
    Davison, Kenneth S.
    Goltzman, David
    Thabane, Lehana
    Gafni, Amiran
    Papadimitropoulos, Emmanuel A.
    Brown, Jacques P.
    Josse, Robert G.
    Hanley, David A.
    Adachi, Jonathan D.
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2009, 181 (05) : 265 - 271
  • [8] Cross-calibration, Least Significant Change and Quality Assurance in Multiple Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scanner Environments: 2019 ISCD Official Position
    Jankowski, Lawrence G.
    Warner, Sarah
    Gaither, Ken
    Lenchik, Leon
    Fan, Bo
    Lu, Ying
    Shepherd, John
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY, 2019, 22 (04) : 472 - 483
  • [9] The magnitude and challenge of false-positive newborn screening test results
    Kwon, C
    Farrel, PM
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, 2000, 154 (07): : 714 - 718
  • [10] Fracture risk following high-trauma versus low-trauma fracture: a registry-based cohort study
    Leslie, W. D.
    Schousboe, J. T.
    Morin, S. N.
    Martineau, P.
    Lix, L. M.
    Johansson, H.
    McCloskey, E. V.
    Harvey, N. C.
    Kanis, J. A.
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 31 (06) : 1059 - 1067