| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Technologist AbstractsTechnologist Papers III |
1 Nuclear Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
2021
Objectives: Precision testing in the field of BMD is the process whereby the ability of the instrument and the technologist to reproduce results, given no real biologic change, is measured. When comparing BMD results from different measurements over time, it is important to know if a change in BMD is significant, or simply a variation that is within the test (least significant change, or LSC). Clinical precision was measured at our institution, where multiple technologists routinely perform BMD scanning.
Methods: The reproducibility of BMD measurement for the spine (L1 – L4), and the left (L) and right (R) hip total and neck, was assessed for 3 technologists, according to the International Society of Clinical Densitometry guidelines. All BMD scans were performed on a Hologic DiscoveryTM W scanner. Each technologist scanned 30 randomly-selected patients twice, with repositioning between scans, and the root-mean-square (RMS) of the 30 patient coefficients of variation (CV %) as well as LSC % (2.77 x CV) were calculated. The CV data from the 3 technologists were then pooled and RMS CV and LSC values calculated for the group as a whole.
Results: The CVs between technologists were generally within 0.50 % of each other. The R hip CVs were consistently larger than those for the L hip. The pooled RMS CVs (%) were: 0.88 (L1-L4); 2.63 (R hip neck); 1.93 (L hip neck); 1.51 (R hip total); 1.28 (L hip total); 2.31 (L+R hip neck); and 1.40 (L+R hip total).
Conclusions: Although there was slight variation in reproducibility of BMD measurement between technologists, all CVs were in the range of published values. The corresponding LSCs (%) for reporting at our institution would be: 2.43 (L1-L4); 6.39 (hip neck); and 3.88 (hip total).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
