脊髓损伤患者的腰椎密度测量:潜在误差源调查

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Journal of Clinical Densitometry Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101528
{"title":"脊髓损伤患者的腰椎密度测量:潜在误差源调查","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><em>Purpose</em>: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience a considerable loss of bone after the injury. Lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) has been reported to be within the normal range, or even higher when assessed with DXA, in people with SCI; hence, it has been hypothesized that sources of error may spuriously increase LS BMD. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of potential sources of error that may alter LS BMD measurement in a cohort of individuals with chronic SCI at baseline and over a 2-year period. <em>Methods</em>: We analyzed baseline and 2-year follow up DXA scans (Hologic Discovery QDR 4500, Hologic Inc., MA, USA) previously performed from a cohort of males and females with chronic SCI. Two physicians independently reviewed each scan, commented on whether the scan was appropriate for BMD analysis, should be re-analyzed, or be removed from the dataset, and reported on the presence of potential sources of error in LS BMD measurement. <em>Results</em>: We reviewed 115 lumbar spine DXA scans from 58 participants, and 107 (93.0 %) scans from 52 participants presented at least one potential source of error. At baseline, the average number of potential sources of error per scan was 5.5 ± 1.7 and 5.7 ± 1.5 according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Follow-up scans presented an average of 5.6 ± 1.6 and 5.7 ± 1.4 potential sources of error according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Facet sclerosis, osteophytes and difficulty in detecting bone edges were the most prevalent sources of error. <em>Conclusion</em>: The high frequency of potential sources of error is consistent with current recommendations against the use of LS BMD for fracture risk assessment in people with SCI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000635/pdfft?md5=2793d56b702e3e1604537e2312e13514&pid=1-s2.0-S1094695024000635-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lumbar spine densitometry in people with spinal cord injury: Investigation of potential sources of errors\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocd.2024.101528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><em>Purpose</em>: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience a considerable loss of bone after the injury. Lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) has been reported to be within the normal range, or even higher when assessed with DXA, in people with SCI; hence, it has been hypothesized that sources of error may spuriously increase LS BMD. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of potential sources of error that may alter LS BMD measurement in a cohort of individuals with chronic SCI at baseline and over a 2-year period. <em>Methods</em>: We analyzed baseline and 2-year follow up DXA scans (Hologic Discovery QDR 4500, Hologic Inc., MA, USA) previously performed from a cohort of males and females with chronic SCI. Two physicians independently reviewed each scan, commented on whether the scan was appropriate for BMD analysis, should be re-analyzed, or be removed from the dataset, and reported on the presence of potential sources of error in LS BMD measurement. <em>Results</em>: We reviewed 115 lumbar spine DXA scans from 58 participants, and 107 (93.0 %) scans from 52 participants presented at least one potential source of error. At baseline, the average number of potential sources of error per scan was 5.5 ± 1.7 and 5.7 ± 1.5 according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Follow-up scans presented an average of 5.6 ± 1.6 and 5.7 ± 1.4 potential sources of error according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Facet sclerosis, osteophytes and difficulty in detecting bone edges were the most prevalent sources of error. <em>Conclusion</em>: The high frequency of potential sources of error is consistent with current recommendations against the use of LS BMD for fracture risk assessment in people with SCI.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Densitometry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000635/pdfft?md5=2793d56b702e3e1604537e2312e13514&pid=1-s2.0-S1094695024000635-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Densitometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000635\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695024000635","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:脊髓损伤(SCI)患者在受伤后骨质会大量流失。据报道,脊髓损伤患者的腰椎骨矿物质密度(BMD)在正常范围内,使用 DXA 评估时甚至更高;因此,有人假设误差源可能会虚假地增加腰椎骨矿物质密度。本研究的目的是描述可能改变慢性 SCI 患者基线和两年内 LS BMD 测量的潜在误差源的频率。方法:我们分析了一组患有慢性 SCI 的男性和女性患者之前进行的基线和两年随访 DXA 扫描(Hologic Discovery QDR 4500,Hologic 公司,美国马萨诸塞州)。两名医生对每份扫描进行独立审查,就扫描是否适合进行 BMD 分析、应重新分析或从数据集中删除发表意见,并报告 LS BMD 测量中是否存在潜在的误差源。结果:我们检查了 58 名参与者的 115 份腰椎 DXA 扫描,其中 52 名参与者的 107 份扫描(93.0%)至少存在一个潜在误差源。基线时,根据评分者 1 和评分者 2,每次扫描的潜在错误源平均数量分别为 5.5 ± 1.7 和 5.7 ± 1.5。根据评分者 1 和评分者 2,后续扫描的潜在误差源平均分别为 5.6 ± 1.6 和 5.7 ± 1.4。面骨硬化、骨质增生和难以检测骨边缘是最常见的误差来源。结论潜在错误源的高频率与目前反对使用 LS BMD 评估 SCI 患者骨折风险的建议一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Lumbar spine densitometry in people with spinal cord injury: Investigation of potential sources of errors

Purpose: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience a considerable loss of bone after the injury. Lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) has been reported to be within the normal range, or even higher when assessed with DXA, in people with SCI; hence, it has been hypothesized that sources of error may spuriously increase LS BMD. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of potential sources of error that may alter LS BMD measurement in a cohort of individuals with chronic SCI at baseline and over a 2-year period. Methods: We analyzed baseline and 2-year follow up DXA scans (Hologic Discovery QDR 4500, Hologic Inc., MA, USA) previously performed from a cohort of males and females with chronic SCI. Two physicians independently reviewed each scan, commented on whether the scan was appropriate for BMD analysis, should be re-analyzed, or be removed from the dataset, and reported on the presence of potential sources of error in LS BMD measurement. Results: We reviewed 115 lumbar spine DXA scans from 58 participants, and 107 (93.0 %) scans from 52 participants presented at least one potential source of error. At baseline, the average number of potential sources of error per scan was 5.5 ± 1.7 and 5.7 ± 1.5 according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Follow-up scans presented an average of 5.6 ± 1.6 and 5.7 ± 1.4 potential sources of error according to rater 1 and rater 2, respectively. Facet sclerosis, osteophytes and difficulty in detecting bone edges were the most prevalent sources of error. Conclusion: The high frequency of potential sources of error is consistent with current recommendations against the use of LS BMD for fracture risk assessment in people with SCI.

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
Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Journal of Clinical Densitometry 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.00%
发文量
92
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal is committed to serving ISCD''s mission - the education of heterogenous physician specialties and technologists who are involved in the clinical assessment of skeletal health. The focus of JCD is bone mass measurement, including epidemiology of bone mass, how drugs and diseases alter bone mass, new techniques and quality assurance in bone mass imaging technologies, and bone mass health/economics. Combining high quality research and review articles with sound, practice-oriented advice, JCD meets the diverse diagnostic and management needs of radiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, family physicians, internists, and technologists whose patients require diagnostic clinical densitometry for therapeutic management.
期刊最新文献
Technical and biological reliability of pQCT measured bone and muscle tissue quality across the age-span Correlation between body composition and bone mineral density differs by sex and skeletal site in overweight and obese Chinese subjects Lumbar spine densitometry in people with spinal cord injury: Investigation of potential sources of errors Comparison of Mineral Density of Dental Structures of Ancient Human Skeletons from the Roman Period with Modern-Day Human Dental Structures Lumbar Osteoarthritis in Patients with Osteoporosis Evaluated with the Lane and Wilke Scale and its Effect on Dexa Scores
×
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