Bias and agreement for radiogrammetric estimates of cortical bone geometry.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Radiogrammetry of the second metacarpal assumes a circular or elliptical model, which does not conform to reality. This study assesses the degree of bias and limits of agreement (error) resulting from deviations from these assumed models for estimates of bone mass and strength. METHODS Forty-six left metacarpals were radiographed in orthogonal posteroanterior and mediolateral views for calculation of algebraic estimations of area and bending moments of area. The bones were then sectioned at midshaft and digitized for determination of actual values of these properties. Bias was determined as the mean difference between methods, and error as +/-2 standard deviation. RESULTS Radiogrammetric methods significantly (P < 0.05) overestimate actual values for measures of cortical area and bending strength. Elliptical models are less biased and prone to smaller ranges of error than are uniplanar circular models. CONCLUSIONS Radiogrammetric estimation of metacarpal bone mass is subject to considerable method error arising from use of an overly simplistic circular model for its midshaft geometry.

[1]  H. Rico,et al.  Behavior of bone mass measurements. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry total body bone mineral content, ultrasound bone velocity, and computed metacarpal radiogrammetry, with age, gonadal status, and weight in healthy women. , 1996, Investigative radiology.

[2]  K. Fox,et al.  Radial and ulnar cortical thickness of the second metacarpal , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  R. Lazenby Brief communication: non-circular geometry and radiogrammetry of the second metacarpal. , 1995, American journal of physical anthropology.

[4]  C. Ruff,et al.  Hand dominance and bilateral asymmetry in the structure of the second metacarpal. , 1994, American journal of physical anthropology.

[5]  J. C. Ohman Computer software for estimating cross-sectional geometric properties of long bones with concentric and eccentric elliptical models , 1993 .

[6]  J. Wishart,et al.  Relationships between metacarpal morphometry, forearm and vertebral bone density and fractures in post-menopausal women. , 1993, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  H. Meindok,et al.  Advantages of peripheral radiogrametry over dual‐photon absorptiometry of the spine in the assessment of prevalence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in women , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[8]  C. Ruff,et al.  Use of biplanar radiographs for estimating cross‐sectional geometric properties of mandibles , 1992, The Anatomical record.

[9]  S. Garn,et al.  Continuing bone expansion and increasing bone loss over a two‐decade period in men and women from a total community sample , 1992, American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council.

[10]  T. Tomomitsu,et al.  Indexes of bone mineral content on second metacarpal bone roentgenogram analyzed by digital image processing: a comparison with other bone mass quantifying methods. , 1990, Radiation medicine.

[11]  A. Hofman,et al.  Metacarpal bone loss in middle-aged women: "horse racing" in a 9-year population based follow-up study. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  D. J. Daegling Biomechanics of cross-sectional size and shape in the hominoid mandibular corpus. , 1989, American journal of physical anthropology.

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[14]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies , 1983 .

[15]  J. Dequeker,et al.  Metacarpal bone mass and upper-extremity strength in 18-year-old boys. , 1982, Investigative radiology.

[16]  C. Plato,et al.  Bilateral asymmetry in bone measurements of the hand and lateral hand dominance. , 1980, American journal of physical anthropology.

[17]  Sexual dimorphism in metacarpal dimensions and body size of Mexican school children. , 1977, Acta anatomica.

[18]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[19]  B. Nordin,et al.  The clinical and radiological problem of thin bones. , 1961, The British journal of radiology.