Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q1 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY Clinical Anatomy Pub Date : 2024-06-15 DOI:10.1002/ca.24187
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量骨矿物质密度的超声波设备的有效性。
本研究旨在检验用于测量桡骨 1/3 位置 BMD 的便携式超声设备 UltraScan650™ 的有效性和可靠性。研究人员使用 DXA(前臂、股骨、腰椎和全身)和 UltraScan650™ 对 52 名女性急救人员和医疗服务提供者进行了评估。还使用 DXA 评估了脂肪和瘦体重。皮尔逊相关性、Bland-Altman 图、t 检验和线性回归用于评估有效性。类内相关(ICC)系数用于评估可靠性。评分者之间的可靠性和可重复性良好(ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p 2)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Anatomy
Clinical Anatomy 医学-解剖学与形态学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3 months
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.
期刊最新文献
"Practical Anatomy is to medical men what mathematics are to the physicist". Using large language models (ChatGPT, Copilot, PaLM, Bard, and Gemini) in Gross Anatomy course: Comparative analysis. Is dissection or prosection equal in dental anatomy education? Comparative assessment of three AI platforms in answering USMLE Step 1 anatomy questions or identifying anatomical structures on radiographs. Treatment of thoracic outlet syndrome to relieve chronic migraine.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1