ArticleJournal of bone metabolism2021
Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review.
Article in Journal of bone metabolism, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has evolved from pencil-beam (PB) to narrow fan-beam (FB) densitometers. We performed a meta-analysis of the available observational studies to determine how different modes of DXA affect bone mineral density (BMD) measurements.
methodsA total of 1,233 patients (808 women) from 14 cohort studies were included. We evaluated the differences in BMD according to the DXA mode: PB and FB. Additionally, we evaluated the differences in BMD between the 2 types of FB mode: FB (Prodigy) and the most recent FB (iDXA). Pairwise meta-analysis was performed, and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for (total lumbar, total hip, and total body).
resultsNo significant difference was observed in total lumbar (pooled WMD, -0.013; P=0.152) and total hip BMD (pooled WMD, -0.01; P=0.889), between PB and FB. However, total body BMD was significantly lower in the PB compared to the FB group (pooled WMD, -0.014; P=0.024). No significant difference was observed in lumbar BMD (pooled WMD, -0.006; P=0.567), total hip (pooled WMD, -0.002; P=0.821), and total body (pooled WMD, 0.015; P=0.109), between Prodigy and iDXA.
conclusionsThe results of this study warrant the recommendation that correction equations should not be used when comparing BMD from different modes. Further research is still needed to highlight the ways in which differences between DXA systems can be minimized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.