Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography: Measurement Sensitivity in Persons With and Without Spinal Cord Injury

Shields RK, Dudley-Javoroski S, Boaldin KM, Corey TA, Fog DB, Ruen JM. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography: measurement sensitivity in persons with and without spinal cord injury. To determine (1) the error attributable to external tibia-length measurements by using peripheral quantitative c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Vol. 87; no. 10; pp. 1376 - 1381
Main Authors Shields, Richard K., Dudley-Javoroski, Shauna, Boaldin, Kathryn M., Corey, Trent A., Fog, Daniel B., Ruen, Jacquelyn M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.10.2006
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Shields RK, Dudley-Javoroski S, Boaldin KM, Corey TA, Fog DB, Ruen JM. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography: measurement sensitivity in persons with and without spinal cord injury. To determine (1) the error attributable to external tibia-length measurements by using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) and (2) the effect these errors have on scan location and tibia trabecular bone mineral density (BMD) after spinal cord injury (SCI). Blinded comparison and criterion standard in matched cohorts. Primary care university hospital. Eight able-bodied subjects underwent tibia length measurement. A separate cohort of 7 men with SCI and 7 able-bodied age-matched male controls underwent pQCT analysis. Not applicable. The projected worst-case tibia-length–measurement error translated into a pQCT slice placement error of ±3mm. We collected pQCT slices at the distal 4% tibia site, 3mm proximal and 3mm distal to that site, and then quantified BMD error attributable to slice placement. Absolute BMD error was greater for able-bodied than for SCI subjects (5.87mg/cm 3 vs 4.5mg/cm 3). However, the percentage error in BMD was larger for SCI than able-bodied subjects (4.56% vs 2.23%). During cross-sectional studies of various populations, BMD differences up to 5% may be attributable to variation in limb-length–measurement error.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0003-9993
1532-821X
DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.07.257