118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17616413)
1. A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems.
Shepherd JA; Lu Y
J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(3):249-58. PubMed ID: 17616413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparing BMD results between two similar DXA systems using the generalized least significant change.
Shepherd JA; Morgan SL; Lu Y
J Clin Densitom; 2008; 11(2):237-42. PubMed ID: 18455677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans.
Shepherd JA; Fan B; Lu Y; Lewiecki EM; Miller P; Genant HK
Osteoporos Int; 2006; 17(9):1303-8. PubMed ID: 16823544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison and cross-calibration of DXA systems: ODX-240 and Sophos L-XRA versus Hologic QDR-4500, for spinal bone mineral measurement. Translation of a reference database.
Benmalek A; Sabatier JP
Osteoporos Int; 1998; 8(6):570-7. PubMed ID: 10326063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Instrument performance in bone density testing at five Australian centres.
Khan KM; Henzell SL; Broderick C; Prince RL; Saul A; Lomman J; Wark JD
Aust N Z J Med; 1997 Oct; 27(5):526-30. PubMed ID: 9404582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Follow-up of individual patients on two DXA scanners of the same manufacturer.
Kolta S; Ravaud P; Fechtenbaum J; Dougados M; Roux C
Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(8):709-13. PubMed ID: 11095175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program.
Pearson D; Horton B; Green DJ
J Clin Densitom; 2006; 9(3):287-94. PubMed ID: 16931346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring.
Leslie WD; Moayyeri A;
Osteoporos Int; 2006; 17(11):1673-80. PubMed ID: 16900302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of phantoms for cross-calibration of lumbar spine DXA.
Pearson D; Cawte SA; Green DJ
Osteoporos Int; 2002 Dec; 13(12):948-54. PubMed ID: 12459937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Intersite comparison of the Hologic QDR-1000 dual energy X-ray bone densitometer.
Blake GM; Tong CM; Fogelman I
Br J Radiol; 1991 May; 64(761):440-6. PubMed ID: 2036569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of two Hologic DXA systems (QDR 1000 and QDR 4500/A).
Barthe N; Braillon P; Ducassou D; Basse-Cathalinat B
Br J Radiol; 1997 Jul; 70(835):728-39. PubMed ID: 9245885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cross calibration of Hologic QDR2000 and GE Lunar Prodigy for forearm bone mineral density measurements.
Pearson D; Horton B; Green DJ
J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(3):306-11. PubMed ID: 17584510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cross-calibration, Least Significant Change and Quality Assurance in Multiple Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scanner Environments: 2019 ISCD Official Position.
Jankowski LG; Warner S; Gaither K; Lenchik L; Fan B; Lu Y; Shepherd J
J Clin Densitom; 2019; 22(4):472-483. PubMed ID: 31558404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparative performance in vitro and in vivo of Lunar DPX and Hologic QDR-1000 dual energy X-ray absorptiometers.
Laskey MA; Flaxman ME; Barber RW; Trafford S; Hayball MP; Lyttle KD; Crisp AJ; Compston JE
Br J Radiol; 1991 Nov; 64(767):1023-9. PubMed ID: 1742583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cross-calibration, precision and patient dose measurements in preparation for clinical trials using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.
Cawte SA; Pearson D; Green DJ; Maslanka WB; Miller CG; Rogers AT
Br J Radiol; 1999 Apr; 72(856):354-62. PubMed ID: 10474496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: upgrading from a Hologic QDR 1000/W to a QDR 2000.
Faulkner KG; Glüer CC; Estilo M; Genant HK
Calcif Tissue Int; 1993 Feb; 52(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 8443695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Development of a phantom for morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.
Rea JA; Blake GM; Fogelman I
Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):341-50. PubMed ID: 11387153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A study of the long-term precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone densitometers and implications for the validity of the least-significant-change calculation.
Hangartner TN
Osteoporos Int; 2007 Apr; 18(4):513-23. PubMed ID: 17136486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry reference data for GE Lunar systems.
Fan B; Shepherd JA; Levine MA; Steinberg D; Wacker W; Barden HS; Ergun D; Wu XP
J Clin Densitom; 2014; 17(3):344-77. PubMed ID: 24161789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing BMD results between 2 similar DXA systems using the generalized least significant change.
Blake GM
J Clin Densitom; 2009; 12(3):404-6; author reply 407-10. PubMed ID: 19261497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
