Validity Of Ultrasound Device To Measure Bone Mineral Density At 1/3Rd Radius Position In Females

TITLE: Validity of ultrasound device to measure bone mineral density at 1/3rd radius position in females AUTHORS: Jessica L. Puranda1, Chris M. Edwards1, Vinicius M.R. Weber2, Mohamed Aboudlal1, Kevin Semeniuk1, Kristi B. Adamo1* 1University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada2Midwest State University of Paraná, Guarapuava, PR, Brazil ABSTRACT: Osteoporosis impacts a large portion of the population, particularly among female individuals. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD); however, DXA is costly, immobile, and exposes individuals to radiation. PURPOSE: This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the UltraScan650™, a portable ultrasound device used to measure BMD at the 1/3rd radius position. METHODS: Fifty-two female first responders and healthcare providers were assessed using DXA (forearm, femur, lumbar and total body) and the UltraScan650™. Fat and lean mass were also assessed using the DXA. Pearson correlations, Bland-Altman plots, t-tests, and linear regressions were used to assess validity. Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients assessed reliability. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability and repeatability was good (ICC = 0.896 (0.818; 0.942), p < 0.001) and excellent (ICC = 0.917 (0.785; 0.989), p < 0.001), respectively. BMD as measured by the UltraScan650™ was weakly correlated to the DXA [r = 0.382 (0.121; 0.593), p = 0.0052]. Bland-Altman plots revealed that the UltraScan650™ underestimated (-0.0569 g/cm2) BMD, this was confirmed with a significant paired t-test (p < 0.001). A linear regression was performed [0.4744*UltraScan650™ + 0.4170] to provide more information as to the issue of agreement. Bland-Altman plots revealed a negligible bias, supported by a paired t-test (p = 0.9978). Pearson’s correlation revealed a significant relationship [r = -0.771 (-0.862; -0.631), p < 0.0001] between adjusted UltraScan650™ - DXA and the average of the two scans (i.e., adjusted UltraScan650™ and DXA), suggesting a proportional constant error and proportional constant variability in measurements of BMD from the UltraScan650™. CONCLUSION: The UltraScan650™ is not a valid alternative to the DXA for diagnostic purposes; however, the UltraScan650™ could be used as a screening tool in the clinical and research setting. Canadian Graduate Scholarship - Doctoral (189307)