Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis. On the other hand, quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is widely used to assess bone density as part of medical screening as it is relatively inexpensive and easy to perform. Current QUS devices do not share precise ultrasound-related parameters, such as frequency, waveform, beam pattern, transient response, definition of propagation time, definition of degree of attenuation, and precise measurement site, resulting in different measurements across models. The Japan Osteoporosis Society established a QUS Standardization Committee in 2007 to investigate standardization of speed of sound (SOS) and broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) measurements to resolve this issue. The committee came up with a formula to convert SOS and BUA values yielded by each model available in Japan. This has made it possible to convert QUS measurements from different models into standardized values, greatly improving the effectiveness of QUS measurements.
Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) Speed of sound (SOS) Broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) Standardization of QUS
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We wish to express our gratitude to Mr. Kaoru Horii (OYO Electric Co., Ltd.), who helped process an enormous amount of data in this study of QUS standardization.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects (volunteers) for being included in the study.
Otani T. Standardization of QUS. Osteoporos Jpn. 2009;17:149–53 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Ludwig GD. The velocity of sound through tissues and the acoustic impedance of tissues. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1950;22:862–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman DE, Hueter TF. Tabular data of the velocity and absorption of high-frequency sound in mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1956;28:35–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman DE, Hueter TF. Errata: Tabular data of the velocity and absorption of high-frequency sound in mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1957;29:655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss SA, Johnston RL, Dunn F. Comprehensive compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1978;64:423–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss SA, O’Brien WD Jr. Direct ultrasonic velocity measurements of mammalian collagen threads. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1979;65:507–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss SA, Johnston RL, Dunn F. Comprehensive compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues II. J Acoust Soc Amer. 1980;68:93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW. The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Eng Med. 1984;13:89–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bauer DC, Glüer CC, Genant HK, et al. Quantitative ultrasound and vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:353–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hans D, Dargent-Molina P, Schott AM, et al. Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996;348:511–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Nicholson PHF, Müller R, Lowet G, et al. Do quantitative ultrasound measurements reflect structure independently of density in human vertebral cancellous bone? Bone. 1998;23:425–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Laugier P, Giat P, Berger G. Broadband ultrasonic attenuation imaging: a new imaging technique of the os calcis. Calcif Tissue Int. 1994;54:83–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fournier B, Chappard C, Roux C, et al. Quantitative ultrasound imaging at the calcaneus using an automatic region of interest. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7:363–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Heaney PR, Avioli LV, Chestnut CH, et al. Osteoporotic bone fragility: detection by ultrasound transmission velocity. JAMA. 1989;261:2986–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hosie CJ, Smith DA, Deacon AD, et al. Comparison of broadband ultrasonic attenuation of the os calcis and quantitative computed tomography of the distal radius. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1987;8:303–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Waud CE, Lew R, Baran DT. The relationship between ultrasound and densitometric measurements of bone mass at the calcaneus in women. Calcif Tissue Int. 1992;51:415–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski JA, Rossman PJ, Mesina C, et al. Ultrasound transmission measurements through the os calcis. Calcif Tissue Int. 1991;49:107–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Glüer CC, Vahlensieck M, Faulkner KG, et al. Site-matched calcaneal measurements of broad-band ultrasound attenuation and single X-ray absorptiometry: do they measure different skeletal properties? J Bone Min Res. 1992;7:1071–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry. 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman; 1995.Google Scholar
Genant HK, Grampp S, Glüer CC, et al. Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Min Res. 1994;10:1503–14.Google Scholar
Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, et al. Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Min Res. 1997;12:1463–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaffaï S, Padilla F, Berger G, et al. In vitro measurement of the frequency-dependent attenuation in cancellous bone between 0.2 and 2 MHz. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108:1281–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wear KA. Ultrasonic attenuation in human calcaneus from 0.2 to 1.7 MHz. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2001;48:602–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar