Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DRA) and dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) were compared to determine the best means of assessing bone density. Both methods were used to evaluate the lumbar spine in 107 women (aged 35-84 years [mean, 64 years]) referred for evaluation of osteoporosis risk. High correlation was documented between measurements derived by the two techniques, with a .95 linear regression coefficient for the total spine density measurement. Age-related regression equations were similar in slope but manifested different intercepts. Bone mineral density values derived with DRA were consistently lower than those obtained with DPA (conversion equation: DPA density = [1.067 X DRA density] + 0.163). Besides the inherent imperfections of each system, it was found that inaccurate identification of intervertebral spaces on the low-resolution DPA images introduced errors in patient data. DRA may replace DPA as the dedicated projectional densitometric procedure of choice for technical reasons, but at present a conversion equation must be used to compare DRA data to DPA data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borders et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: