Skip to main content
Log in

Precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements

  • Clinical Investigations
  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This study was performed to determine the precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements, to compare bone mineral density (BMD) of subjects measured by DEXA and radionuclide dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA), and to evaluate different absorber materials for use with an external standard. Short-term precision (% coefficient of variation, CV) was determined in 6 subjects scanned six times each with repositioning, initially and 9 months later. Mean CV was 1.04% for spine and 2.13% for femoral neck BMD; for whole-body measurements in 5 subjects, mean CV was 0.64% for BMD, 2.2% for fat, and 1.05% for lean body mass. Precision of aluminum phantom measurements made over a 9-month period was 0.89% with the phantom in 15.2 cm, 0.88% in 20.3 cm, and 1.42% in 27.9 cm of water. In 51 subjects, BMD by DEXA and DPA was correlated for the spine (r=0.98,P=0.000) and femoral neck (r=0.91,P=0.000). Spine BMD was 4.5% lower and femoral neck BMD 3.1% higher by DEXA than by DPA. An aluminum phantom was scanned repeatedly, in both water and in an oil/water (30∶70) mixture at thicknesses ranging from 15.2 through 27.9 cm. Phantom BMD was lower at 15.2 cm than at higher thicknesses of both water and oil/water (P=0.05, ANOVA). The phantom was scanned repeatedly in 15.2, 20.3, and 27.9 cm of water over a 9 month period. In 15.2 and 20.3 cm of water, phantom BMD did not vary significantly whereas in 27.9 cm of water (equivalent to a human over 30 cm thick), phantom BMD increased 2.3% (P=0.01) over the 9 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mazess RB, Barden HS (1988) Measurement of bone by dualphoton absorptiometry (DPA) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Ann Chir Gynaecol 77:197–203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pacifici R, Rupich R, Vered I, Fischer KC, Griffin M Susman N, Avioli LV (1988) Dual energy radiography (DER): a preliminary comparative study. Calcif Tissue Int 43:189–191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mazess RB, Collick B, Trempe J, Barden H, Hanson J (1989) Performance evaluation of a dual-energy X-ray bone densitometer. Calcif Tissue Int 44:228–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cullum ID, Ell PJ, Ryder JP (1989) X-ray dual-photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone density. Br J Radiol 62:587–592

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Slosman DO, Rizzoli R, Donath A, Bonjour J-Ph (1990) Precision of X-ray and Gd-153 bone densitometers at the levels of the spine (frontal and lateral views), femoral neck and shaft (abstract). Calcif Tissue Int 46 (supp 2):142

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nijs J, Geusens P, Dequeker J, Verstraeten A (1988) Reproducibility and intercorrelations of total bone mineral and dissected regional BMC measurements. In: Dequeker JV, Geusens P and Wahner HW (eds) Bone mineral measurements by photon absorptiometry: methodological problems. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, pp 451–453

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson-Hughes B, Deehr MS, Berger PS, Dallal GE, Sadowski LJ (1989) Correction of the effects of source, source strength, and soft-tissue thickness on spine dual-photon absorptiometry measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 44:251–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nilas L, Hassager C, Christiansen C (1988) Long-term precision of dual photon absorptiometry in the lumbar spine in clinical settings. Bone Miner 3:305–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindsay R, Fey C, Haboubi A (1987) Dual photon absorptiometry measurements of bone mineral density increase with source life. Calcif Tissue Int 41:293–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Vogel JM (1988) Precision error in dual-photon absorptiometry related to source age. Radiology 166:523–527

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heymsfield SB, Wang J, Heshka S, Kehayias JJ, Pierson RN (1989) Dual-photon absorptiometry: comparison of bone mineral and soft tissue mass measurements in vivo with established methods. Am J Clin Nutr 49:1283–1289

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Brown ML (1988) Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine. Mayo Clin Proc 63:1075–1084

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelly TL, Slovik DM, Schoenfeld DA, Neer RM (1988) Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 67:839–844

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Strause L, Bracker M, Saltman P, Sartoris D, Kerr E (1989) A comparison of quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 45:288–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, J., Dawson-Hughes, B. Precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 49, 174–178 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02556113

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02556113

Key words

Navigation