Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck.
DXA
Diagnosis
Femoral neck
Hip
Lumbar spine
Osteoporosis
REMS
Ultrasound
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
09
01
2018
accepted:
21
08
2018
pubmed:
5
9
2018
medline:
4
9
2019
entrez:
5
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
An innovative, non-ionizing technique to diagnose osteoporosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck was evaluated through a multicenter study involving 1914 women. The proposed method showed significant agreement with reference gold standard method and, therefore, a potential for early osteoporosis diagnoses and possibly improved patient management. To assess precision (i.e., short term intra-operator precision) and diagnostic accuracy of an innovative non-ionizing technique, REMS (Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry), in comparison with the clinical gold standard reference DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry), through an observational multicenter clinical study. In a multicenter cross-sectional observational study, a total of 1914 postmenopausal women (51-70 years) underwent spinal (n = 1553) and/or femoral (n = 1637) DXA, according to their medical prescription, and echographic scan of the same anatomical sites performed with the REMS approach. All the medical reports (DXA and REMS) were carefully checked to identify possible errors that could have caused inaccurate measurements: erroneous REMS reports were excluded, whereas erroneous DXA reports were re-analyzed where possible and otherwise excluded before assessing REMS accuracy. REMS precision was independently assessed. In the spinal group, quality assessment on medical reports produced the exclusion of 280 patients because of REMS errors and 78 patients because of DXA errors, whereas 296 DXA reports were re-analyzed and corrected. Analogously, in the femoral group there were 205 exclusions for REMS errors, 59 exclusions for DXA errors, and 217 re-analyzed DXA reports. In the resulting dataset (n = 1195 for spine, n = 1373 for femur) REMS outcome showed a good agreement with DXA: the average difference in bone mineral density (BMD, bias ± 2SD) was -0.004 ± 0.088 g/cm The REMS approach can be used for non-ionizing osteoporosis diagnosis directly on lumbar spine and femoral neck with a good level of accuracy and precision. However, a more rigorous operator training is needed to limit the erroneous acquisitions and to ensure the full clinical practicability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30178159
doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4686-3
pii: 10.1007/s00198-018-4686-3
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
391-402Références
Osteoporos Int. 2006 Dec;17(12):1726-33
pubmed: 16983459
Calcif Tissue Int. 1992 Oct;51(4):255-8
pubmed: 1422969
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 Jun;40(6):1307-17
pubmed: 24642217
J Korean Med Sci. 2005 Dec;20(6):1011-6
pubmed: 16361814
J Bone Miner Res. 1999 Aug;14(8):1449-56
pubmed: 10457279
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Nov;91(11):4215-22
pubmed: 16940447
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Jan;35(1):165-8
pubmed: 18723270
PM R. 2012 Oct;4(10):748-55
pubmed: 22841967
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Mar;97(3):800-9
pubmed: 22170722
J Clin Densitom. 2008 Jan-Mar;11(1):188-206
pubmed: 18442759
Braz J Infect Dis. 2017 Nov - Dec;21(6):581-586
pubmed: 28950107
J Bone Miner Res. 1992 Dec;7(12):1373-82
pubmed: 1481723
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Dec;16(12):2149-56
pubmed: 16228104
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Mar;23(3):1001-6
pubmed: 21528361
Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(6):438-44
pubmed: 11446558
Osteoporos Int. 2014 Oct;25(10):2359-81
pubmed: 25182228
Osteoporos Int. 2015 Jul;26(7):2045-7
pubmed: 25986381
Osteoporos Int. 2015 Jul;26(7):1979-87
pubmed: 25690339
Eur Radiol. 2015 May;25(5):1504-11
pubmed: 25428701
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Apr;23(4):1287-95
pubmed: 21656263
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016 Jun;42(6):1337-56
pubmed: 27033331
J Nutr. 2006 Jul;136(7 Suppl):1976S-1978S
pubmed: 16772471
J Clin Densitom. 2015 Jul-Sep;18(3):274-86
pubmed: 26277847
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Dec;23(12):2815-28
pubmed: 22349910
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Jan;28(1):85-93
pubmed: 27492435
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Oct;20(10):1633-50
pubmed: 19421703
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jan;23(1):143-53
pubmed: 22037972
Osteoporos Int. 2016 Mar;27(3):971-977
pubmed: 26556741
J Bone Miner Res. 1997 Sep;12(9):1463-70
pubmed: 9286763
Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(9):1283-92
pubmed: 16821003
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Mar;24(3):1015-22
pubmed: 22878531
Osteoporos Int. 2010 Jun;21(6):969-76
pubmed: 19693640
Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2015 May-Aug;12(2):142-50
pubmed: 26604940
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Jan;41(1):281-300
pubmed: 25438845