Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring

The Effect of Resistance Training with Outdoor Fitness Equipment on the Body Composition, Physical Fitness, and Physical Health of Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study examined the effect of outdoor-fitness-equipment-based resistance training on the health parameters of middle-aged and older adults, as well as analyzing the effect of age on the results found. A total of 149 volunteers were randomly assigned to the training (TG) and control (CG) groups. The TG performed two weekly sessions of resistance training for 8 weeks using outdoor fitness equipment, while the CG continued with their regular daily activities. Body composition was measured using DXA, and the maximal isometric voluntary contraction in knee extension, elbow flexion, and hand grip were assessed, along with the 4 m walk test, the Timed Up and Go Test, and the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire. The TG showed a significant increase in the lean mass index (p = 0.002) and maximal isometric voluntary contraction in both legs (p < 0.001) and arms (p < 0.001), as well as in physical functioning (p < 0.001) and the role physical dimension (p = 0.006) of the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire, compared to the CG, which showed a decrease in all these variables. In addition, the TG showed a greater decrease in fat mass (p < 0.001), fat mass index (p = 0.003), and the Timed Up and Go Test (p < 0.001) than the CG. Age conditioned the evolution of most of the variables analyzed (p < 0.05). In conclusion, resistance training with outdoor fitness equipment may be useful for improving the health of middle-aged and older adults, although age is a factor that could influence the adaptations found.

Bone health status evaluation in men by means of REMS technology

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis in males is largely under-diagnosed and under-treated, with most of the diagnosis confirmed only after an osteoporotic fracture. Therefore, there is an urgent need for highly accurate and precise technologies capable of identifying osteoporosis earlier, thereby avoiding complications from fragility fractures.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and precision of the non-ionizing technology Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a male population in comparison with conventional Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA).

METHODS

A cohort of 603 Caucasian males aged between 30 and 90 years were involved in the study. All the enrolled patients underwent lumbar and femoral scans with both DXA and REMS. The diagnostic agreement between REMS and DXA-measured BMD was expressed by Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. The accuracy of the diagnostic classification was evaluated by the assessment of sensitivity and specificity considering DXA as reference.

RESULTS

A significant correlation between REMS- and DXA-measured T-score values (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001) for lumbar spine and for femoral neck (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001) documented the substantial equivalence of the two measurement techniques. Bland-Altman outcomes showed that the average difference in T-score measurement is very close to zero (-0.06 ± 0.60 g/cm2 for lumbar spine and - 0.07 ± 0.44 g/cm2 for femoral neck) confirming the agreement between the two techniques. Furthermore, REMS resulted an effective technique to discriminate osteoporotic patients from the non-osteoporotic ones on both lumbar spine (sensitivity = 90.1%, specificity = 93.6%) and femoral neck (sensitivity = 90.9%, specificity = 94.6%). Precision yielded RMS-CV = 0.40% for spine and RMS-CV = 0.34% for femur.

CONCLUSION

REMS, is a reliable technology for the diagnosis of osteoporosis also in men. This evidence corroborates its high diagnostic performance already observed in previous studies involving female populations.

Physical and psychological effects of outdoor fitness equipment training on middle-aged and older adults: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

This project will investigate the effectiveness of an 8-week outdoor fitness equipment (OFE) programme on health parameters in healthy community-dwelling middle and older adults, corresponding to the present paper to the study protocol, which follows a single-blind randomised controlled trial design. The training intervention will involve participation in an OFE programme implemented over 8 weeks, two sessions/week. Rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, training volume and adherence to the exercise programme will be registered each session. The control group will not receive any structured exercise programme. Blinded examiners will evaluate before and after the training programme muscle strength with both maximum knee extension and elbow flexion isometric tests, handgrip strength test and five time sit-to-stand test; cardiovascular fitness with 400-metre walking test; postural stability with the balance tests of the short physical performance battery (SPPB) battery; dynamic balance with Timed Up and Go (TUG) test; body composition with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; functional performance by gait speed, TUG and SPPB battery; blood pressure; and sagittal spine disposition and pelvic tilt. Information will also be collected about demographic characteristics, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with life and adherence to the Mediterranean diet questionnaires. After that, sarcopenia, osteoporosis and fracture risk will be calculated. The results derived from this research will increase the knowledge of the effectiveness of OFE training for improving the health of healthy community-dwelling middle and older adults.

Short-Term Precision and Repeatability of Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) on Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur: An In Vivo Study

To determine the short-term intra-operator precision and inter-operator repeatability of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry (REMS) at the lumbar spine (LS) and proximal femur (FEM). All patients underwent an ultrasound scan of the LS and FEM. Both precision and repeatability, expressed as root-mean-square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV) and least significant change (LSC) were obtained using data from two consecutive REMS acquisitions by the same operator or two different operators, respectively. The precision was also assessed in the cohort stratified according to BMI classification. The mean (±SD) age of our subjects was 48.9 ± 6.8 for LS and 48.3 ± 6.1 for FEM. Precision was assessed on 42 subjects at LS and 37 subjects on FEM. Mean (±SD) BMI was 24.71 ± 4.2 for LS and 25.0 ± 4.84 for FEM. Respectively, the intra-operator precision error (RMS-CV) and LSC resulted in 0.47% and 1.29% at the spine and 0.32% and 0.89% at the proximal femur evaluation. The inter-operator variability investigated at the LS yielded an RMS-CV error of 0.55% and LSC of 1.52%, whereas for the FEM, the RMS-CV was 0.51% and the LSC was 1.40%. Similar values were found when subjects were divided into BMI subgroups. REMS technique provides a precise estimation of the US-BMD independent of subjects' BMI differences.

Impact of 24-Hr Diet and Physical Activity Control on Short-Term Precision Error of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Physique Assessment

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a popular technique used to quantify physique in athletic populations. Due to biological variation, DXA precision error (PE) may be higher than desired. Adherence to standardized presentation for testing has shown improvement in consecutive-day PE. However, the impact of short-term diet and physical activity standardization prior to testing has not been explored. This warrants investigation, given the process may reduce variance in total body water and muscle solute, both of which can have high daily flux amongst athletes. Twenty (n = 10 males, n = 10 females) recreationally active individuals (age: 30.7 ± 7.5 years; stature: 176.4 ± 9.1 cm; mass: 74.6 ± 14.3 kg) underwent three DXA scans; two consecutive scans on 1 day, and a third either the day before or after. In addition to adhering to standardized presentation for testing, subjects recorded all food/fluid intake plus activity undertaken in the 24 hr prior to the first DXA scan and replicated this the following 24 hr. International Society of Clinical Densitometry recommended techniques were used to calculate same- and consecutive-day PE. There was no significant difference in PE of whole-body fat mass (479 g vs. 626 g) and lean mass (634 g vs. 734 g) between same- and consecutive-day assessments. Same- and consecutive-day PE of whole-body fat mass and lean mass were less than the smallest effect size of interest. Inclusion of 24-hr standardization of diet and physical activity has the potential to reduce biological error further, but this needs to be verified with follow-up investigation.

Accuracy of body composition measurement techniques across the age span

This study investigated the acceptable accuracy of common body composition techniques compared with the reference 4-compartment (4C-R) model, which has not been investigated in a sample with diverse characteristics, including age and sex. Techniques included components of the 4C-R model [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography, deuterium dilution (DD)] and surrogate compartment models, which utilised bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) rather than DD. Men and women (sex = 1:1, 18-85 years, n = 90) completed body composition testing under best-practice guidance. For measurement of individuals, only the reference 3-compartment (3C-R) equation met acceptable error limits (<5% error among individuals) within the a priori cut-point (80%) for fat-free mass (FFM; CV = 0.52%) and fat mass (FM; CV = 1.61%). However, all investigated techniques reached equivalency to the 4C-R model for FFM on average (CV = 0.52-4.31%), but for FM only the 3C and 4C equations that included quantification of total body water (TBW) by DD or BIS reached equivalency overall (CV = 1.61-6.68%). Sex and age minimally influenced accuracy. Only the 3C-R or 4C-R equations are supported for acceptable individual accuracy for both FFM and FM. For group estimates any investigated technique could be used with acceptable accuracy for FFM; however, for FM, inclusion of TBW measurement within a compartment model is necessary. Novelty: Only the referent 3C and 4C models (including deuterium dilution) provide accurate body composition results that are acceptable for measurement of individuals in the general population. For group estimates of lean mass in the general population, compartments models that include TBW must be used for accurate measurement.

Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting: Pearls and Pitfalls

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the method of choice for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). Unfortunately, the performance and interpretation of DXA can be challenging and errors are common. In fact, it has been reported that up to 90% of BMD reports contain at least 1 error. Errors can be the result of technique or interpretative in nature or both and can result in inappropriate diagnosis and management. In this article, we review the various types of pitfalls frequently encountered by physicians interpreting DXA studies. Being aware of these pitfalls will help readers recognize and avoid them when encountered in clinical practice.

Cross-calibration, Least Significant Change and Quality Assurance in Multiple Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scanner Environments: 2019 ISCD Official Position

In preparation for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference (PDC) 2019 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a cross-calibration and precision task force was assembled and tasked to review the literature, summarize the findings, and generate positions to answer 4 related questions provided by the PDC Steering Committee, which expand upon the current ISCD official positions on these subjects. (1) How should a provider with multiple dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners of the same make and model calculate least significant change (LSC)? (2) How should a provider with multiple DXA systems with the same manufacturer but different models calculate LSC? (3) How should a provider with multiple DXA systems from different manufacturers and models calculate LSC? (4) Are there specific phantom procedures that one can use to provide trustworthy in vitro cross calibration for same models, different models, and different makes? Based on task force deliberations and the resulting systematic literature reviews, 3 new positions were developed to address these more complex scenarios not addressed by current official positions on single scanner cross calibration and LSC. These new positions provide appropriate guidance to large multiple DXA scanner providers wishing to offer patients flexibility and convenience, and clearly define good clinical practice requirements to that end.

Precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the knee and heel: methodology and implications for research to reduce bone mineral loss after spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

Methodological validation of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based measures of leg bone mineral density (BMD) based on the guidelines of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to determine the precision of BMD estimates at the knee and heel using the manufacturer provided DXA acquisition algorithm. The secondary objective was to determine the smallest change in DXA-based measurement of BMD that should be surpassed (least significant change (LSC)) before suggesting that a biological change has occurred in the distal femur, proximal tibia and calcaneus.

SETTING

Academic Research Centre, Canada.

METHODS

Ten people with motor-complete SCI of at least 2 years duration and 10 people from the general population volunteered to have four DXA-based measurements taken of their femur, tibia and calcaneus. BMDs for seven regions of interest (RIs) were calculated, as were short-term precision (root-mean-square (RMS) standard deviation (g cm^-2), RMS-coefficient of variation (RMS-CV, %)) and LSC.

RESULTS

Overall, RMS-CV values were similar between SCI (3.63-10.20%, mean=5.3%) and able-bodied (1.85-5.73%, mean=4%) cohorts, despite lower absolute BMD values at each RIs in those with SCI (35%, heel to 54%, knee; P<0.0001). Precision was highest at the calcaneus and lowest at the femur. Except at the femur, RMS-CV values were under 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

For DXA-based estimates of BMD at the distal femur, proximal tibia and calcaneus, these precision values suggest that LSC values >10% are needed to detect differences between treated and untreated groups in studies aimed at reducing bone mineral loss after SCI.

Does the precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral density differ by sex?

Given larger bone size in men, bone mineral density (BMD) precision might differ between sexes. This study compared dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry BMD precision of 3 International Society for Clinical Densitometry-certified technologists in older men and women. Each technologist scanned a cohort of 30 men and 30 women (total n = 180) by using a Lunar iDXA densitometer (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI). Each volunteer had 2 lumbar spine and bilateral hip scans with repositioning between examinations. BMD least significant change was calculated. Age and body mass index did not differ between men and women. Mean height and weight were greater in men, 174.6 cm ± 6.9 and 81.6 kg ± 11.1 respectively, (p < 0.0001) than in women, 161.5 cm ± 5.9/69.1 kg ± 14.2, respectively. Bone area was greater in men (p < 0.0001) at all sites. BMD least significant change was statistically better (p < 0.05) in women at the mean total femur (0.014 vs 0.018 g/cm(2)) and left femoral neck (0.025 vs 0.038 g/cm(2)), but not different at either total femur, the right femoral neck, or lumbar spine (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, statistically significant male/female differences in BMD precision were observed at the mean total femur and left femoral neck. Given the small magnitude of difference in g/cm(2) and inconsistent pattern, that is, no right femoral neck difference, there is virtually no clinical difference in BMD precision between sexes. These data do not support a need for sex-specific precision analyses.

Proceedings of the 2011 Santa Fe Bone symposium

The 11th Santa Fe Bone Symposium was held in Santa Fe, NM, USA, on August 6-7, 2010. This annual event addresses the clinical relevance of recent scientific advances in the fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease. The symposium format included plenary presentations, oral abstracts, and interactive panel discussions, with participation of clinicians, researchers, and bone densitometry technologists. Among the many topics included in the symposium were new developments in nutritional therapy for osteoporosis, parathyroid hormone for the assessment and treatment of skeletal disease, osteoporosis in men, new and emerging concepts in osteoporosis therapy, report on the 2010 International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD)-International Osteoporosis Foundation FRAX Initiative and the ISCD Position Development Conference, balancing benefits and risks of bisphosphonate therapy, and an advanced bone densitometry workshop for clinicians and technologists.

Measurements of bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and proximal femur using lunar prodigy and the new pencil-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the correlation of the absolute bone mineral density (BMD) values of the lumbar spine and standard sites of the proximal femur obtained from a Lunar Prodigy and the newly developed pencil-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (Dexxum).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2008 and December 2008, 79 Korean volunteers were enrolled. Measurements were obtained on the same day using both densitometers. The absolute BMD values (g/cm(2)) from the two densitometers were evaluated using Pearson's correlation analysis with Bonferroni's correction for the three clinically important sites. In order to evaluate precision, we performed duplicate Dexxum measurements, and calculated the within-subject coefficient of variation (WSCV).

RESULTS

The Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) of BMD values for the total proximal femur, femoral neck, and lumbar spine by the two densitometers were 0.926, 0.948, and 0.955 respectively, and the null hypotheses of r = 0.8 were all rejected (p < 0.001 by one-sided Z-test with Fisher's z-transformation for each site). The T-scores (r ≧ 0.842) and Z-scores (r ≧ 0.709) also showed strong positive correlations. The duplicate BMD values of Dexxum showed a high level of precision (WSCV ≦ 4.27%).

CONCLUSION

Dexxum measurements of BMD, T-scores, and Z-scores showed a strong linear correlation with those measured on Lunar Prodigy.

Factors affecting short-term precision of musculoskeletal measures using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT)

Few studies have investigated factors influencing the precision of peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) measures. This study found time between repeat scans and subject anthropometric characteristics to influence short-term precision of pQCT-derived measures in the lower leg. These findings have implications for both investigators and clinicians utilizing pQCT outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) is increasingly being used to investigate musculoskeletal changes associated with age, disease and/or intervention. Precision of pQCT measures is of paramount importance in this endeavor. This study aimed to establish the short-term precision of pQCT-derived musculoskeletal measures of the lower leg and investigate factors influencing this precision.

METHODS

Thirty healthy subjects had a series of six pQCT scans of the lower leg (66% of tibial length proximal from its distal end) performed on two separate days by two different testers. The influences of different testers, time between repeat scans, and subject anthropometric characteristics on precision were explored.

RESULTS

Overall precision error (root mean square) increased from bone (<1%) to muscle (<1.5%) to fat (3%). The two testers were equally precise in performing pQCT measures; however, precision error increased when repeat scans were repeated 1 week apart as opposed to on the same day. Subject anthropometric characteristics influenced precision errors with the general finding being that an increase in subject size was associated with less precise pQCT measures.

CONCLUSIONS

pQCT is a relatively precise technique for the assessment of bone and muscle, but precision is influenced by time between repeat scans and subject anthropometric characteristics. Investigators and clinicians need to be aware of these factors influencing pQCT outcomes as they may influence statistical power in clinical studies and the characterization of change in individual patients.

In vivo precision of the GE Lunar iDXA densitometer for the measurement of total-body, lumbar spine, and femoral bone mineral density in adults

Knowledge of precision is integral to the monitoring of bone mineral density (BMD) changes using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We evaluated the precision for bone measurements acquired using a GE Lunar iDXA (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) in self-selected men and women, with mean age of 34.8 yr (standard deviation [SD]: 8.4; range: 20.1-50.5), heterogeneous in terms of body mass index (mean: 25.8 kg/m(2); SD: 5.1; range: 16.7-42.7 kg/m(2)). Two consecutive iDXA scans (with repositioning) of the total body, lumbar spine, and femur were conducted within 1h, for each subject. The coefficient of variation (CV), the root-mean-square (RMS) averages of SDs of repeated measurements, and the corresponding 95% least significant change were calculated. Linear regression analyses were also undertaken. We found a high level of precision for BMD measurements, particularly for scans of the total body, lumbar spine, and total hip (RMS: 0.007, 0.004, and 0.007 g/cm(2); CV: 0.63%, 0.41%, and 0.53%, respectively). Precision error for the femoral neck was higher but still represented good reproducibility (RMS: 0.014 g/cm(2); CV: 1.36%). There were associations between body size and total-body BMD and total-hip BMD SD precisions (r=0.534-0.806, p<0.05) in male subjects. Regression parameters showed good association between consecutive measurements for all body sites (r(2)=0.98-0.99). The Lunar iDXA provided excellent precision for BMD measurements of the total body, lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip.

Effect of precision on longitudinal follow-up of bone mineral density measurements in elderly women and men

Precision error of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry exceeds the expected annual rate of bone loss in the elderly. The capacity to detect changes in areal bone mineral density (aBMD; g/cm(2)) over a 5-yr period was assessed. Six hundred ninety-one women, 75.2 (0.1)yr, from the Malmö OPRA-study, were measured using Lunar DPX-L (GE Lunar, Madison, WI), and 211 men, 74.7 (3.2)yr, from the Malmö Mr Os-study, were measured using Lunar Prodigy (GE Lunar) with follow-up 5 yr later. Precision error was determined with 30 degrees of freedom. Least significant change (LSC, i.e., 2.77 × precision error) was calculated. Women's precision errors (g/cm(2)) for DPX-L were 0.028 (total hip [TH]) and 0.016 (lumbar spine [LS]), and for Prodigy, they were 0.009 (TH) and 0.039 (LS). In men, corresponding results for Prodigy were 0.014 and 0.031. In women, 41% and in men, 39% had aBMD changes exceeding the LSC at TH. Follow-up intervals (i.e., LSC/median rate of aBMD change) for both women and men were 8 yr (TH) and 13 yr (LS). Based on Prodigy precision data, follow-up intervals for women were 3 and 32 yr at TH and LS. In summary, several years were needed to detect change. Only when a high rate of bone loss is suspected, a short follow-up time is possible, in elderly persons.

Monitoring changes in bone density

The relationship between declining bone density and increasing fracture risk is firmly established; the relationship between increasing bone density and decreasing fracture risk is less clear. Because of this, the clinical utility of assessing the therapeutic efficacy of prescription therapies to reduce fracture risk by measuring changes in bone density has been called into question. However, there is substantial clinical trial data to support this approach. Nevertheless, an apparent increase or decrease in the bone density may be misinterpreted without an understanding of the statistical concepts of precision and least significant change. These concepts are not difficult and are of profound clinical importance. If the least significant change is not known, serial measurements of bone density cannot be interpreted. These concepts will be discussed and illustrated, and the rationale for the importance of changes in bone mineral density on therapy will be explored.

Factors affecting short-term bone density precision assessment and the effect on patient monitoring

The most widely used procedure for performing a BMD reproducibility assessment (same-technologist with simple repositioning on the same day) systematically underestimates precision error and will lead to over categorization of change in a large fraction of monitored patients.

INTRODUCTION

The most common procedure for establishing the least significant change (LSC) to monitor bone mineral density (BMD) with DXA is for the same technologist to perform repeat subject scans on the same day with simple repositioning. The objective of the current report is to determine how the reproducibility scanning procedure impacts on the precision assessment and categorization of change in routine clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population was drawn from the database of the Manitoba Bone Density Program which includes all clinical DXA test results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. All patients who had baseline and follow up total spine (L1-4) and the total hip BMD measurements on the same instrument up to March 31, 2007 were included as the 'clinical monitoring population' (N = 5048 scan-pairs). BMD precision was assessed in a convenience sample of patients who were agreeable to undergoing a repeat assessment (50% performed on the same day with repositioning, 68% by different technologists) (N = 331 spine and 328 hip scan-pairs).

RESULTS

Precision error was greater when the scan-pairs were acquired on different days than on the same day for both the total spine (p < .001) and total hip (p < .01). No other factor was consistently associated with precision error. The reference LSC (different days and different technologists) categorized the smallest fraction of the monitored population with change, whereas other combinations gave a significant rate of over categorization (up to 19.3% for the lumbar spine and up to 18.3% for the total hip).

CONCLUSIONS

The most widely procedure for performing a BMD reproducibility assessment (same-technologist with simple repositioning on the same day) systematically underestimates precision error and will lead to over categorization of change in a large fraction of monitored patients.

A new approach for quantifying change and test precision in bone densitometry

The effect of precision study sample size is not considered in current recommendations for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) change. Intuitively, a larger sample size should provide greater confidence in the derived least significant change (LSC), which should translate into a more confident determination of change. We evaluated an empirical Monte Carlo simulation method for estimating the significance of an observed change in BMD that simultaneously considers the magnitude of the change, the LSC point estimate, and the precision study sample size. This method showed a progressive increase in the ability to identify BMD change using larger precision study sample sizes. Approaches that consider the error in the LSC estimate may provide more robust determinations of BMD change even when the precision study sample size is limited.

Sample size requirements for bone density precision assessments and effect on patient categorization: a Monte Carlo simulation study

A sample size of 30 degrees of freedom (df) for bone mineral density (BMD) precision studies may be insufficient for reliably categorizing change. Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate the effect of precision study sample size on identifying change in clinical patients. Least significant change (LSC) from 198 spine and 193 total hip scan-pairs was used to categorize change for 1420 patients undergoing BMD monitoring. Relative to this reference change fraction (RCF), LSC limits were identified that gave specified deviations from the RCF (-25% to +25%). Confidence limits (95% and 80%) for these LSC values (5 to 500 df) were estimated using 'bootstrap' samplings. A sample size providing 140 df is needed to avoid overdetecting spine change by 5% and 150 df to avoid underdetecting spine change by 5% with 95% confidence limits. A sample size of 30 df resulted in up to a 12.5% overdetection and 10.0% underdetection of spine or hip change based upon 95% confidence limits. In conclusion, assessing the effect of precision study sample size on classifying change in monitored patients is an important element of the precision assessment that is neglected in current recommendations. Sample sizes larger than 30 df are required if low levels of categorization error are to be achieved.

Reproducibility of metacarpophalangeal bone mass measurements obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in healthy volunteers and patients with early arthritis

The prognostic value of measuring hand bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with early arthritis (EA) has been recently assessed. In this work, we evaluate the reproducibility of measuring juxta-articular BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the second to fifth metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints. We obtained whole hand (WH) and MCP joint BMD measurements from 16 healthy subjects and from 22 patients with EA. The coefficient of variation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated. The coefficient of variation ranged from 1.3% to 0.7% at MCP joints and from 1.4% to 0.9% in the WH measurements, respectively. The intra- and interobserver ICC for both WH and MCP joints ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. The SDD at the different anatomical locations analyzed ranged from 0.006 to 0.022 g/cm2 in healthy controls and from 0.005 to 0.010 g/cm2 in EA. Interestingly, patients who fulfilled rheumatoid arthritis criteria showed a lower bone mass than those with undifferentiated arthritis. Therefore, BMD measurements obtained by DXA at MCP joints were reproducible and it might be useful in the study of patients with EA.

A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems

In this article, we derive a generalized expression for the least significant change (LSC), which we call the generalized LSC (GLSC), to be used when an individual is measured on 2 different systems. The commonly used LSC is defined as the least amount of change between 2 measurements over time that must be exceeded before a change can be considered true (with 95% confidence). The LSC has clinical applications in monitoring disease progression or treatment effects in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content. Mathematically, the "ideal" LSC (ILSC) is 2.77 times the precision errors for measures on a single system. When BMD values of an individual are measured by 2 different systems, the LSC will depend not only on the precision errors of both systems but also on the calibration relationship between the systems. Like the ILSC, the GLSC is a simple equation applicable for inter machine comparisons. The GLSC can be defined for any 2 systems with measures obtained from cross-calibration and precision studies using the protocols recommended by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. We validated the GLSC using 10,000 simulated measurements taken between 2 systems and offer several common uses of the GLSC such as system upgrades within a single manufacturer and replacement of 1 manufacturer by another. We found that when upgrading a Hologic QDR-2000 to a QDR-4500, GLSC was twice as large as the QDR-2000 LSC (0.0432 and 0.0215 g/cm2, respectively). The GLSC was 2.6 (spine) to 3.6 (total hip) times larger than the LSC when comparing scans between the Hologic Delphi and the GE Lunar Prodigy. We also explore how the magnitude of the correlation coefficient and sample size change the GLSC and show that a correlation coefficient less than 0.95 increases the %GLSC to above 10%, and that increasing study sample sizes beyond 30 in the cross-calibration studies can only decrease the magnitude of the GLSC accuracy by 4%. We conclude that the GLSC, defined using commonly used clinical cross-calibration and precision assessments, is the most accurate method to compare scans between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry systems.