Bone Mineral and Body Composition Measurements: Cross-Calibration of Pencil-Beam and Fan-Beam Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometers
- 1 October 1998
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
- Vol. 13 (10), 1613-1618
- https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.10.1613
Abstract
Pencil-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXA) are being replaced with instruments that rely solely on fan-beam technology. However, information has been lacking regarding the translation of bone mineral and body composition data between the two devices. We have compared total body scans using pencil-beam (Hologic QDR-2000W) and fan-beam (Hologic QDR-4500A) instruments for 33 children (ages 3-18 years) and 14 adults. Bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD), fat, lean, and body fatness (%fat) values were highly correlated (r2 = 0.984-0.998) between the two DXA instruments. The mean differences between the paired measurements were: deltaBMC = 7.5 +/- 73.6 g, deltaBMD = 0.0074 +/- 0.0252 g/cm2, delta lean = 1.05 +/- 1.8 kg, delta fat = -0.77 +/- 1.7 kg, and delta%fat = -0.94% +/- 2.5%. The BMC and BMD values were not statistically different, whereas the differences for the body composition values were significant (p < 0.02-0.005). Regression equations are provided for conversion of bone and body composition data between pencil-beam and fan-beam values for the whole body. To test the performance of these equations for a second group (23 subjects), predicted values were compared with the measured data obtained using the fan-beam instrument. The mean differences were -1.0% to 1.4%, except for body fat mass, where the difference was 6.4%. For cross-sectional studies, the two DXA technologies can be considered equivalent after using the translational equations provided. For longitudinal studies in which small changes in body composition for the individual are to be detected, we recommend that the same DXA instrument be used whenever possible. For example, transition from a pencil-beam to a fan-beam instrument could, in extreme cases, result in differences as large as 19% for the estimate of body fat mass.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Anomalies in the Measurement of Changes in Total-Body Bone Mineral by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry During Weight ChangeJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1997
- A Preliminary Evaluation of the Lunar Expert-XL for Bone Densitometry and Vertebral MorphometryJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1997
- Correcting the Magnification Error of Fan Beam DensitometersJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1997
- Total body calcium and bone mineral content: Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with neutron activation analysisJournal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1996
- Cross calibration of QDR-2000 and QDR-1000 dual-energy X-ray densitometers for bone mineral and soft-tissue measurementsBone, 1995
- Precision and accuracy of measurements of whole-body bone mineral: comparisons between Hologic, Lunar and Norland dual-energy X-ray absorptiometersThe British Journal of Radiology, 1994
- Dual X-ray absorptiometry: a comparison between fan beam and pencil beam scansThe British Journal of Radiology, 1993
- Assessment of Body Composition With Use of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry: Evaluation and Comparison With Other MethodsMayo Clinic Proceedings, 1993
- Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: Upgrading from a hologic QDR 1000/W to a QDR 2000Calcified Tissue International, 1993
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986