Loading…
Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density
This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty‐two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan6...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2025-01, Vol.38 (1), p.54-62 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2407-4e8e7f12f58ec99c40823c0284eea086a1fc953689dd843d77012b881e68873f3 |
| container_end_page | 62 |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 54 |
| container_title | Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Puranda, Jessica L. Edwards, Chris M. Weber, Vinicius M. R. Aboudlal, Mohamed Semeniuk, Kevin Adamo, Kristi B. |
| description | This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty‐two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland–Altman plots, t‐tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra‐class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter‐rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ca.24187 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3068757085</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3068757085</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2407-4e8e7f12f58ec99c40823c0284eea086a1fc953689dd843d77012b881e68873f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMotlbBXyABN26m5jWTm51SfEHBjboNaeYOTJmZ1KSj9N872qoguLqL-52PwyHklLMpZ0xcejcVioPeI2PODGRC5nKfjBkYnUlgxYgcpbRkjHOl4ZCMJIDWIOWYXL24pi7r9YaGirqO9s06uhT6rqQlvtUe6TrQFl3qI9JF6JC2dYfRNcO7S0PumBxUrkl4srsT8nx78zS7z-aPdw-z63nmhWI6UwioKy6qHNAb4xUDIT0ToBAdg8LxyptcFmDKEpQstWZcLAA4FkNXWckJudh6VzG89pjWtq2Tx6ZxHYY-WckK0LlmkA_o-R90GfrYDe2s5Co3whQF_xX6GFKKWNlVrFsXN5Yz-7mq9c5-rTqgZzthv2ix_AG_ZxyAbAu81w1u_hXZ2fVW-AEdF32A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3145929661</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Puranda, Jessica L. ; Edwards, Chris M. ; Weber, Vinicius M. R. ; Aboudlal, Mohamed ; Semeniuk, Kevin ; Adamo, Kristi B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Puranda, Jessica L. ; Edwards, Chris M. ; Weber, Vinicius M. R. ; Aboudlal, Mohamed ; Semeniuk, Kevin ; Adamo, Kristi B.</creatorcontrib><description>This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty‐two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland–Altman plots, t‐tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra‐class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter‐rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 [0.785; 0.989], p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA (r = 0.382 [0.121; 0.593], p = 0.0052). Bland–Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated BMD (−0.0569 g/cm2), this was confirmed with a significant paired t‐test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed (0.4744 × UltraScan650™ + 0.4170) to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland–Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t‐test (p = 0.9978). Pearson's correlation revealed a significant relationship (r = −0.771 [−0.862; −0.631], p < 0.0001) between adjusted UltraScan650™—DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting given the linear transformation is employed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-3806</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1098-2353</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2353</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ca.24187</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38877833</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon ; Adult ; Aged ; Bone Density ; Bone mineral density ; Correlation ; diagnostic ; Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry ; Emergency response ; Error analysis ; Female ; Femur ; Humans ; Linear transformations ; Middle Aged ; Portable equipment ; Position measurement ; Radius ; Radius - diagnostic imaging ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography - instrumentation ; Ultrasound ; validation ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2025-01, Vol.38 (1), p.54-62</ispartof><rights>2024 American Association of Clinical Anatomists and British Association of Clinical Anatomists.</rights><rights>2025 American Association of Clinical Anatomists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2407-4e8e7f12f58ec99c40823c0284eea086a1fc953689dd843d77012b881e68873f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7198-2633</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38877833$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Puranda, Jessica L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, Chris M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, Vinicius M. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aboudlal, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Semeniuk, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adamo, Kristi B.</creatorcontrib><title>Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density</title><title>Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)</title><addtitle>Clin Anat</addtitle><description>This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty‐two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland–Altman plots, t‐tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra‐class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter‐rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 [0.785; 0.989], p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA (r = 0.382 [0.121; 0.593], p = 0.0052). Bland–Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated BMD (−0.0569 g/cm2), this was confirmed with a significant paired t‐test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed (0.4744 × UltraScan650™ + 0.4170) to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland–Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t‐test (p = 0.9978). Pearson's correlation revealed a significant relationship (r = −0.771 [−0.862; −0.631], p < 0.0001) between adjusted UltraScan650™—DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting given the linear transformation is employed.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Bone mineral density</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>diagnostic</subject><subject>Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry</subject><subject>Emergency response</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femur</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Linear transformations</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Portable equipment</subject><subject>Position measurement</subject><subject>Radius</subject><subject>Radius - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>validation</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0897-3806</issn><issn>1098-2353</issn><issn>1098-2353</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2025</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMotlbBXyABN26m5jWTm51SfEHBjboNaeYOTJmZ1KSj9N872qoguLqL-52PwyHklLMpZ0xcejcVioPeI2PODGRC5nKfjBkYnUlgxYgcpbRkjHOl4ZCMJIDWIOWYXL24pi7r9YaGirqO9s06uhT6rqQlvtUe6TrQFl3qI9JF6JC2dYfRNcO7S0PumBxUrkl4srsT8nx78zS7z-aPdw-z63nmhWI6UwioKy6qHNAb4xUDIT0ToBAdg8LxyptcFmDKEpQstWZcLAA4FkNXWckJudh6VzG89pjWtq2Tx6ZxHYY-WckK0LlmkA_o-R90GfrYDe2s5Co3whQF_xX6GFKKWNlVrFsXN5Yz-7mq9c5-rTqgZzthv2ix_AG_ZxyAbAu81w1u_hXZ2fVW-AEdF32A</recordid><startdate>202501</startdate><enddate>202501</enddate><creator>Puranda, Jessica L.</creator><creator>Edwards, Chris M.</creator><creator>Weber, Vinicius M. R.</creator><creator>Aboudlal, Mohamed</creator><creator>Semeniuk, Kevin</creator><creator>Adamo, Kristi B.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7198-2633</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202501</creationdate><title>Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density</title><author>Puranda, Jessica L. ; Edwards, Chris M. ; Weber, Vinicius M. R. ; Aboudlal, Mohamed ; Semeniuk, Kevin ; Adamo, Kristi B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2407-4e8e7f12f58ec99c40823c0284eea086a1fc953689dd843d77012b881e68873f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2025</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Bone mineral density</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>diagnostic</topic><topic>Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry</topic><topic>Emergency response</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femur</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Linear transformations</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Portable equipment</topic><topic>Position measurement</topic><topic>Radius</topic><topic>Radius - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>validation</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Puranda, Jessica L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, Chris M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, Vinicius M. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aboudlal, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Semeniuk, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adamo, Kristi B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Puranda, Jessica L.</au><au>Edwards, Chris M.</au><au>Weber, Vinicius M. R.</au><au>Aboudlal, Mohamed</au><au>Semeniuk, Kevin</au><au>Adamo, Kristi B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density</atitle><jtitle>Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Anat</addtitle><date>2025-01</date><risdate>2025</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>54</spage><epage>62</epage><pages>54-62</pages><issn>0897-3806</issn><issn>1098-2353</issn><eissn>1098-2353</eissn><abstract>This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device, used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. Fifty‐two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar, and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland–Altman plots, t‐tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra‐class correlation (ICC) coefficients were used to assess reliability. Inter‐rater reliability and repeatability were good (ICC = 0.896 [0.818; 0.942], p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 [0.785; 0.989], p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA (r = 0.382 [0.121; 0.593], p = 0.0052). Bland–Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated BMD (−0.0569 g/cm2), this was confirmed with a significant paired t‐test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed (0.4744 × UltraScan650™ + 0.4170) to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland–Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t‐test (p = 0.9978). Pearson's correlation revealed a significant relationship (r = −0.771 [−0.862; −0.631], p < 0.0001) between adjusted UltraScan650™—DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting given the linear transformation is employed.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>38877833</pmid><doi>10.1002/ca.24187</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7198-2633</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0897-3806 |
| ispartof | Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2025-01, Vol.38 (1), p.54-62 |
| issn | 0897-3806 1098-2353 1098-2353 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3068757085 |
| source | Wiley |
| subjects | Absorptiometry, Photon Adult Aged Bone Density Bone mineral density Correlation diagnostic Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry Emergency response Error analysis Female Femur Humans Linear transformations Middle Aged Portable equipment Position measurement Radius Radius - diagnostic imaging Reliability Reproducibility of Results Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography - instrumentation Ultrasound validation Validity |
| title | Validity of an ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T23%3A26%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20of%20an%20ultrasound%20device%20to%20measure%20bone%20mineral%20density&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20anatomy%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Puranda,%20Jessica%20L.&rft.date=2025-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=54&rft.epage=62&rft.pages=54-62&rft.issn=0897-3806&rft.eissn=1098-2353&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ca.24187&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3068757085%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2407-4e8e7f12f58ec99c40823c0284eea086a1fc953689dd843d77012b881e68873f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3145929661&rft_id=info:pmid/38877833&rfr_iscdi=true |