Computerized bone densitometric analysis

Operator-dependent errors

Ronald B. Staron, Robin Greenspan, Theodore T. Miller, John P. Bilezikian, Elizabeth Shane, Nogah Haramati

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the nature and relative frequency of operator- dependent data analysis errors in dual x-ray absorptiometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 40 months, 2,528 dual x-ray absorptiometric examinations of the forearm, femoral neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software. Each analysis was reviewed by a radiologist; errors were recorded and corrected. RESULTS: There were no forearm analysis errors. There were 24 (0.9%) femoral neck analysis errors, of which 23 resulted from misplacement of the analysis region. There were 33 (1.3%) spinal analysis errors, of which 24 resulted from misplacement of intervertebral disk space markers. Analysis errors of the femur and spine resulted in six misdiagnoses (0.2%). CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis due to analysis errors is rare. Femoral neck analysis errors were easily detectable, but accurate spinal analyses dependent on accurate identification of vertebral end plates and posterior elements. Nonetheless, these potentially serious errors can be detected and corrected if the analyses are reviewed and interpreted by a supervising physician who is familiar with the relevant anatomy, proper analysis techniques, and factors - such as artifacts - that adversely affect the accuracy of the analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)467-470
Number of pages4
JournalRadiology
Volume211
Issue number2
StatePublished - May 1999

Fingerprint

Femur Neck
Diagnostic Errors
Forearm
Bone and Bones
Spine
X-Rays
Intervertebral Disc
Femur
Artifacts
Statistical Factor Analysis
Anatomy
Software
Physicians

Keywords

  • Bones, absorptiometry
  • Computers, diagnostic aid
  • Femur, abnormalities
  • Hip, radiography
  • Osteoporosis
  • Spine, mineralization
  • Spine, radiography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Staron, R. B., Greenspan, R., Miller, T. T., Bilezikian, J. P., Shane, E., & Haramati, N. (1999). Computerized bone densitometric analysis: Operator-dependent errors. Radiology, 211(2), 467-470.

Computerized bone densitometric analysis : Operator-dependent errors. / Staron, Ronald B.; Greenspan, Robin; Miller, Theodore T.; Bilezikian, John P.; Shane, Elizabeth; Haramati, Nogah.

In: Radiology, Vol. 211, No. 2, 05.1999, p. 467-470.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Staron, RB, Greenspan, R, Miller, TT, Bilezikian, JP, Shane, E & Haramati, N 1999, 'Computerized bone densitometric analysis: Operator-dependent errors', Radiology, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 467-470.
Staron RB, Greenspan R, Miller TT, Bilezikian JP, Shane E, Haramati N. Computerized bone densitometric analysis: Operator-dependent errors. Radiology. 1999 May;211(2):467-470.
Staron, Ronald B. ; Greenspan, Robin ; Miller, Theodore T. ; Bilezikian, John P. ; Shane, Elizabeth ; Haramati, Nogah. / Computerized bone densitometric analysis : Operator-dependent errors. In: Radiology. 1999 ; Vol. 211, No. 2. pp. 467-470.
@article{053ac03404e84f7b96785d51f56fdefe,
title = "Computerized bone densitometric analysis: Operator-dependent errors",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To determine the nature and relative frequency of operator- dependent data analysis errors in dual x-ray absorptiometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 40 months, 2,528 dual x-ray absorptiometric examinations of the forearm, femoral neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software. Each analysis was reviewed by a radiologist; errors were recorded and corrected. RESULTS: There were no forearm analysis errors. There were 24 (0.9{\%}) femoral neck analysis errors, of which 23 resulted from misplacement of the analysis region. There were 33 (1.3{\%}) spinal analysis errors, of which 24 resulted from misplacement of intervertebral disk space markers. Analysis errors of the femur and spine resulted in six misdiagnoses (0.2{\%}). CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis due to analysis errors is rare. Femoral neck analysis errors were easily detectable, but accurate spinal analyses dependent on accurate identification of vertebral end plates and posterior elements. Nonetheless, these potentially serious errors can be detected and corrected if the analyses are reviewed and interpreted by a supervising physician who is familiar with the relevant anatomy, proper analysis techniques, and factors - such as artifacts - that adversely affect the accuracy of the analysis.",
keywords = "Bones, absorptiometry, Computers, diagnostic aid, Femur, abnormalities, Hip, radiography, Osteoporosis, Spine, mineralization, Spine, radiography",
author = "Staron, {Ronald B.} and Robin Greenspan and Miller, {Theodore T.} and Bilezikian, {John P.} and Elizabeth Shane and Nogah Haramati",
year = "1999",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "211",
pages = "467--470",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computerized bone densitometric analysis

T2 - Operator-dependent errors

AU - Staron, Ronald B.

AU - Greenspan, Robin

AU - Miller, Theodore T.

AU - Bilezikian, John P.

AU - Shane, Elizabeth

AU - Haramati, Nogah

PY - 1999/5

Y1 - 1999/5

N2 - PURPOSE: To determine the nature and relative frequency of operator- dependent data analysis errors in dual x-ray absorptiometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 40 months, 2,528 dual x-ray absorptiometric examinations of the forearm, femoral neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software. Each analysis was reviewed by a radiologist; errors were recorded and corrected. RESULTS: There were no forearm analysis errors. There were 24 (0.9%) femoral neck analysis errors, of which 23 resulted from misplacement of the analysis region. There were 33 (1.3%) spinal analysis errors, of which 24 resulted from misplacement of intervertebral disk space markers. Analysis errors of the femur and spine resulted in six misdiagnoses (0.2%). CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis due to analysis errors is rare. Femoral neck analysis errors were easily detectable, but accurate spinal analyses dependent on accurate identification of vertebral end plates and posterior elements. Nonetheless, these potentially serious errors can be detected and corrected if the analyses are reviewed and interpreted by a supervising physician who is familiar with the relevant anatomy, proper analysis techniques, and factors - such as artifacts - that adversely affect the accuracy of the analysis.

AB - PURPOSE: To determine the nature and relative frequency of operator- dependent data analysis errors in dual x-ray absorptiometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 40 months, 2,528 dual x-ray absorptiometric examinations of the forearm, femoral neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software. Each analysis was reviewed by a radiologist; errors were recorded and corrected. RESULTS: There were no forearm analysis errors. There were 24 (0.9%) femoral neck analysis errors, of which 23 resulted from misplacement of the analysis region. There were 33 (1.3%) spinal analysis errors, of which 24 resulted from misplacement of intervertebral disk space markers. Analysis errors of the femur and spine resulted in six misdiagnoses (0.2%). CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis due to analysis errors is rare. Femoral neck analysis errors were easily detectable, but accurate spinal analyses dependent on accurate identification of vertebral end plates and posterior elements. Nonetheless, these potentially serious errors can be detected and corrected if the analyses are reviewed and interpreted by a supervising physician who is familiar with the relevant anatomy, proper analysis techniques, and factors - such as artifacts - that adversely affect the accuracy of the analysis.

KW - Bones, absorptiometry

KW - Computers, diagnostic aid

KW - Femur, abnormalities

KW - Hip, radiography

KW - Osteoporosis

KW - Spine, mineralization

KW - Spine, radiography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033005399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033005399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 211

SP - 467

EP - 470

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -