↓ Skip to main content

Common Mistakes in the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A Retrospective Descriptive Multicenter Study

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Medica, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Common Mistakes in the Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in Turkey. A Retrospective Descriptive Multicenter Study
Published in
Acta Medica, February 2017
DOI 10.14712/18059694.2017.38
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Yavuz Karahan, Bugra Kaya, Banu Kuran, Ozlem Altındag, Pelin Yildirim, Sevil Ceyhan Dogan, Aynur Basaran, Ender Salbas, Turgay Altınbilek, Tuba Guler, Sena Tolu, Zekiye Hasbek, Banu Ordahan, Ercan Kaydok, Ufuk Yucel, Selcuk Yesilyurt, Almula Demir Polat, Murat Cubukcu, Omer Nas, Umit Sarp, Ozan Yasar, Seher Kucuksarac, Gozde Turkoglu, Ahmet Karadag, Sinan Bagcaci, Kemal Erol, Emel Guler, Serpil Tuna, Ahmet Yildirim, Savas Karpuz

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a widespread metabolic bone disease representing a global public health problem currently affecting more than two hundred million people worldwide. The World Health Organization states that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the best densitometric technique for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). DXA provides an accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis, a good estimation of fracture risk, and is a useful tool for monitoring patients undergoing treatment. Common mistakes in BMD testing can be divided into four principal categories: 1) indication errors, 2) lack of quality control and calibration, 3) analysis and interpretation errors, and 4) inappropriate acquisition techniques. The aim of this retrospective multicenter descriptive study is to identify the common errors in the application of the DXA technique in Turkey. All DXA scans performed during the observation period were included in the study if the measurements of both, the lumbar spine and proximal femur were recorded. Forearm measurement, total body measurements, and measurements performed on children were excluded. Each examination was surveyed by 30 consultants from 20 different centers each informed and trained in the principles of and the standards for DXA scanning before the study. A total of 3,212 DXA scan results from 20 different centers in 15 different Turkish cities were collected. The percentage of the discovered erroneous measurements varied from 10.5% to 65.5% in the lumbar spine and from 21.3% to 74.2% in the proximal femur. The overall error rate was found to be 31.8% (n = 1021) for the lumbar spine and 49.0% (n = 1576) for the proximal femur. In Turkey, DXA measurements of BMD have been in use for over 20 years, and examination processes continue to improve. There is no educational standard for operator training, and a lack of knowledge can lead to significant errors in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#13,538,247
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Acta Medica
#69
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,249
of 426,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Medica
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them