eprintid: 10147813
rev_number: 7
eprint_status: archive
userid: 699
dir: disk0/10/14/78/13
datestamp: 2022-05-04 16:26:31
lastmod: 2022-05-04 16:26:31
status_changed: 2022-05-04 16:26:31
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
sword_depositor: 699
creators_name: Decrausaz, Sarah-Louise
creators_name: Shirley, Meghan K
creators_name: Stock, Jay T
creators_name: Williams, Jane E
creators_name: Fewtrell, Mary S
creators_name: Clark, Chris A
creators_name: Arthurs, Owen J
creators_name: Wells, Jonathan CK
title: Evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry compared to magnetic resonance imaging for collecting measurements of the human bony pelvis
ispublished: inpress
divisions: UCL
divisions: G25
divisions: D13
divisions: B02
note: Copyright © 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Human Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
abstract: OBJECTIVES: Imaging methods to measure the human pelvis in vivo provide opportunities to better understand pelvic variation and adaptation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides high-resolution images, but is more expensive than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We sought to compare pelvic breadth measurements collected from the same individuals using both methods, to investigate if there are systematic differences in pelvic measurement between these imaging methods. METHODS: Three pelvic breadth dimensions (bi-iliac breadth, bi-acetabular breadth, medio-lateral inlet breadth) were collected from MRI and DXA scans of a cross-sectional sample of healthy, nulliparous adult women of South Asian ancestry (n = 63). Measurements of MRI and DXA pelvic dimensions were collected four times in total, with one baseline data collection session and three replications. Data collected from these sessions were averaged, used to calculate technical error of measurement and entered into a Bland-Altman analysis. Linear regression models were fitted with a given MRI pelvic measurement regressed on the same measurement collected from DXA scans, as well as MRI mean bias regressed on DXA mean bias. RESULTS: Technical error of measurement was higher in DXA measurements of bi-iliac breadth and medio-lateral pelvic inlet breadth and higher for MRI measurements of bi-acetabular breadth. Bland Altman analyses showed no statistically significant relationship between the mean bias of MRI and DXA, and the differences between MRI and DXA pelvic measurements. CONCLUSIONS: DXA measurements of pelvic breadth are comparable to MRI measurements of pelvic breadth. DXA is a less costly imaging technique than MRI and can be used to collect measurements of skeletal elements in living people.
date: 2022-04-23
date_type: published
official_url: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23753
oa_status: green
full_text_type: pub
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
verified: verified_manual
elements_id: 1951300
doi: 10.1002/ajhb.23753
medium: Print-Electronic
lyricists_name: Wells, Jonathan
lyricists_id: JWELL04
actors_name: Flynn, Bernadette
actors_id: BFFLY94
actors_role: owner
funding_acknowledgements: [Parkes Foundation]
full_text_status: public
publication: American Journal of Human Biology
article_number: e23753
event_location: United States
citation:        Decrausaz, Sarah-Louise;    Shirley, Meghan K;    Stock, Jay T;    Williams, Jane E;    Fewtrell, Mary S;    Clark, Chris A;    Arthurs, Owen J;           Decrausaz, Sarah-Louise;  Shirley, Meghan K;  Stock, Jay T;  Williams, Jane E;  Fewtrell, Mary S;  Clark, Chris A;  Arthurs, Owen J;  Wells, Jonathan CK;   - view fewer <#>    (2022)    Evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry compared to magnetic resonance imaging for collecting measurements of the human bony pelvis.                   American Journal of Human Biology      , Article e23753.  10.1002/ajhb.23753 <https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23753>.    (In press).    Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10147813/1/American%20J%20Hum%20Biol%20-%202022.pdf