Dual X-ray absorptiometry quality control: Comparison of visual examination and process-control charts

Abstract

Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used to monitor treatment efficacy in reducing the rate of bone mineral loss. In order to assure the validity of these measurements, instrument quality control of the DXA scanners becomes very important. This paper compares five quality control procedures (visual inspection, Shewhart chart with sensitizing rules, Shewhart chart with sensitizing rules and a filter for clinically insignificant mean changes, moving average chart and standard deviation, and cumulative sum chart [CUSUM]) in their ability to identify scanner malfunction by means of (1) an analysis of five longitudinal phantom data sets that had been collected during a clinical trial and (2) an analysis of simulated data sets. The visual inspection method is relatively subjective and depends on the operator's experience and attention. The regular Shewhart chart with sensitizing rules has a high false alarm rate. The Shewhart chart with sensitizing rules and an additional filter for clinically insignificant mean changes has the lowest false alarm rate but a relatively low sensitivity. The CUSUM method has good sensitivity and a low false alarm rate. In addition, this method provides an estimate of the date a change in the DXA scanner performance might have occurred. The method combining a moving average chart and a moving standard deviation chart came closest to the performance of the CUSUM method. Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of all methods, we propose the use of the CUSUM method as a quality control procedure for monitoring DXA scanner performance. For clinical trials use of the more intuitive Shewhart charts may be acceptable at the individual sites provided their scanner performance is followed up by CUSUM analysis at a central quality assurance center.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 100 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.