Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 13, Issue 2 , Pages 210-218 , April 2010

Cross-Calibration and Comparison of Variability in 2 Bone Densitometers in a Research Setting: The Framingham Experience

  • David R. Gagnon

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • VA Cooperative Studies Program, Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Robert R. McLean

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Marian T. Hannan

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • L. Adrienne Cupples

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Mary Hogan

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Douglas P. Kiel

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Douglas P. Kiel, MD, MPH, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA 02131.

Received 15 December 2008 ,Revised 30 December 2009 ,Accepted 1 January 2010.

References 

  1. The Writing Group for the ISCD Position Development Conference. Technical standardization for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:27–36
  2. Shepherd JA, Lu Y. A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems. J Clin Densitom. 2007;10:249–258
  3. Shepherd JA, Morgan SL, Lu Y. Comparing BMD results between two similar DXA systems using the generalized least significant change. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11:237–242
  4. Kiel DP, Mercier CA, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. The effects of analytic software and scan analysis technique on the comparison of dual X-ray absorptiometry with dual photon absorptiometry of the hip in the elderly. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1130–1136
  5. Oldroyd B, Smith AH, Truscott JG. Cross-calibration of GE/Lunar pencil and fan-beam dual energy densitometers—bone mineral density and body composition studies. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57:977–987
  6. Blake GM, Harrison EJ, Adams JE. Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system. Calcif Tissue Int. 2004;75:7–14
  7. Pearson D, Horton B, Green DJ. Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:287–294
  8. Hannan MT, Felson DT, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. Risk factors for longitudinal bone loss in elderly men and women: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:710–720
  9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310
  10. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® 9.1 user's guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2004;
  11. Hans DB, Shepherd JA, Schwartz EN, et al. Peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11:188–206
  12. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:473–489

PII: S1094-6950(10)00004-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2010.01.003

Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 13, Issue 2 , Pages 210-218 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution