Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of the Discovery A and Stratos DR densitometers for assessing whole-body and regional bone mineral density and body composition.
Maïmoun, Laurent; Mahadea, Krishna Kunal; Alonso, Sandrine; Chevallier, Thierry; Kotzki, Pierre-Olivier; Mura, Thibault; Boudousq, Vincent.
Affiliation
  • Maïmoun L; Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Hôpital Lapeyronie, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
  • Mahadea KK; Physiologie et Médecine Expérimentale du Cœur et des Muscles (PhyMedEx), INSERM, CNRS, Université de Montpellier (UM), Montpellier, France.
  • Alonso S; Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
  • Chevallier T; Department of Biostatistics, Clinical Epidemiology, Public Health, and Innovation in Methodology, Nimes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Nimes, France.
  • Kotzki PO; Department of Biostatistics, Clinical Epidemiology, Public Health, and Innovation in Methodology, Nimes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Nimes, France.
  • Mura T; Institut Desbrest d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique UMR INSERM - Université de Montpellier (UM), Montpellier, France.
  • Boudousq V; Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Hôpital Carémeau, CHU de Nîmes, Nimes, France.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging ; 43(5): 382-392, 2023 Sep.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37211979
PURPOSE: The agreement between the Stratos DR and Discovery A densitometers was assessed for measurements of whole-body (WB) and regional fat mass (FM), fat-free soft tissue (FFST) and bone mineral density (BMD). Moreover, the precision of the Stratos DR was also evaluated. METHODS: Fifty participants (35 women, 70%) were measured consecutively, once on the Discovery A and once on the Stratos DR. In a subgroup of participants (n = 29), two successive measurements with the Stratos DR were also performed. RESULTS: FM, FFST and BMD measured with the two devices were highly correlated, with a coefficient of correlation ranging from 0.80 to 0.99. Bland-Altman analyses indicated significant bias between the two devices for all measurements. Thus, compared to the Discovery A, the Stratos DR underestimated WB BMD and WB and regional FM and FFST, with the exception of trunk FM and visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which were overestimated. Precision error for the Stratos DR, when expressed as root mean square-coefficient of variation (RMS-CV%) for FM, was 1.4% for WB, 3.0% for the gynoid and android regions, and 15.9% for VAT. The RMS-CV% for FFST was 1.0% for WB. The root mean square of standard deviation for WB BMD was 0.018 g/cm², corresponding to a 1.4% CV. The least significant change was 0.050 g/cm² (SD), and 4.0% was considered to be a significant biological change. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the Stratos DR and Discovery A measurements are significant and require the use of translational cross-calibration equations. For most of the BMD and body composition parameters, our results demonstrated good Stratos DR precision.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Body Composition / Bone Density Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Journal subject: FISIOLOGIA / PATOLOGIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: France Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Body Composition / Bone Density Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Journal subject: FISIOLOGIA / PATOLOGIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: France Country of publication: United kingdom