Conference Paper

A 60 days BedRest study: preliminary QUS BUA changes at the calcaneus site

DOI: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2005.1603273 Conference: Ultrasonics Symposium, 2005 IEEE, Volume: 4
Source: IEEE Xplore


Not Available

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We developed a prototype of an ultrasound (US) bone matrix densitometer, the BEAM scanner, in the context of a European Space Agency research program. This device, which is a contact imaging device, was designed to overcome the limitations of immersion devices in space. Broadband US attenuation (BUA) and speed of sound (SOS) parameters were calculated from the radiofrequency (RF) signal. The principle aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo performance in direct comparison with a currently available device (UBIS 3000, DMS, France). The short-term precision of the BEAM scanner for BUA was estimated at 2.8%, whereas it was 2.3% with UBIS 3000. The short-term precision for SOS was 0.3%, and this was the same as the coefficient of variation (CV) of the UBIS 3000. CVs of 3.4% and 0.6% for midterm precision were found for BUA and SOS, respectively, and UBIS 3000 scores were 3% and 0.4%, respectively. This preliminary study demonstrates the high performance of the BEAM scanner and its new concept offers a wide range of improvements and new applications.
    Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 11/2002; 28(10):1285-93. DOI:10.1016/S0301-5629(02)00616-6 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of precision errors in bone mineral densitometry is important for characterization of a technique's ability to detect longitudinal skeletal changes. Short-term and long-term precision errors should be calculated as root-mean-square (RMS) averages of standard deviations of repeated measurements (SD) and standard errors of the estimate of changes in bone density with time (SEE), respectively. Inadequate adjustment for degrees of freedom and use of arithmetic means instead of RMS averages may cause underestimation of true imprecision by up to 41% and 25% (for duplicate measurements), respectively. Calculation of confidence intervals of precision errors based on the number of repeated measurements and the number of subjects assessed serves to characterize limitations of precision error assessments. Provided that precision error are comparable across subjects, examinations with a total of 27 degrees of freedom result in an upper 90% confidence limit of +30% of the mean precision error, a level considered sufficient for characterizing technique imprecision. We recommend three (or four) repeated measurements per individual in a subject group of at least 14 individuals to characterize short-term (or long-term) precision of a technique.
    Osteoporosis International 02/1995; 5(4):262-70. DOI:10.1007/BF01774016 · 4.17 Impact Factor
  • Osteoporosis International 08/2003; 14(7):614-5. DOI:10.1007/s00198-002-1334-7 · 4.17 Impact Factor