Abstract
The performance of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) instruments can be monitored using various quality control (QC) procedures. It has not been established which of these is most appropriate. The aim of this study was to determine which of four QC procedures is the best to use for longitudinal monitoring. Eighteen centres with DXA instruments scanned an aluminium spine phantom weekly for up to 16 months, and the bone mineral density data were used for the QC procedures. The methods investigated were the instrument's inbuilt quality assurance (QA) procedure, visual inspection, multi-rule Shewhart control charts, and Cusum analysis using a truncated-V mask. True and false positive fractions (TPF and FPF) of each method were calculated, including those for a range of action levels for the Shewhart charts and dimensions of the Cusum mask. For Shewhart, the action levels giving the most desirable TPF and FPF were whole multiples of the standard deviation (SD). For Cusum, the most desirable mask dimensions were 3.6 SD for the total height of the vertical section and 0.9 SD per data point for the gradient of the wings. Predictive power of each method as a means of fault detection was decided by the number of faults detected out of a total of 8 non-mechanical faults subsequently diagnosed. The inbuilt QA detected 2, visual inspection 7, Shewhart chart 7 and Cusum analysis 7. The FPFs were: visual inspection 0.09, Shewhart 0.04, Cusum 0.08. At these levels of FPF, the average time in days (range) from onset of a fault to detection was 39 (6–82) for visual inspection, 39 (4–116) for Shewhart and 21 (1–49) for Cusum. All three “phantom” methods are excellent for DXA QC, with modified Cusum analysis being the most effective. The inbuilt QA appears of little use on its own for longitudinal QC.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lunar Corporation. Lunar DPX operator's manual, 1992.
Shewhart WA. Economic control of quality of the manufactured product. New York: Van Nostrand, 1931.
Levey S, Jennings ER. The use of control charts in the clinical laboratories. Am J Clin Pathol 1950;20:1059–66.
Westgard JO, Barry PL, Hunt MR. A multi-rule Shewhart chart for quality control in clincial chemistry. Clin Chem 1981;27:493–501.
Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK. Longitudinal precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6:191–7.
Wahner HW, Looker A, Dunn WL, et al. Quality control of bone densitometry in a national health survey (NHANES III) using three mobile examination centres. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:951–60.
British Standards Institution. BS5703: guide to data analysis and quality control using cusum techniques, parts 1–3. London: British Standards Institution, 1980 and 1981.
Davies OL, Goldsmith PL. Statistical methods in research and production, 4th ed. New York: Hafner Publishing, 1972.
Lu Y, Mathur AK, Blunt BA, et al. Dual X-ray absorptiometry quality control: comparison of visual examination and process control charts. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11:626–37.
Lunar Corporation. Lunar DPX technical manual, 1992.
Knight AC, Williams ED. An evaluatin of cusum analysis and control charts applied to quantitative gamma-camera uniformity parameters for automated quality control. Eur J Nucl Med 1992;19:125–30.
Aronsson T, de Verdier C-H, Groth T. Factors influencing the quality of analytical methods: a systems analysis, with use of computer simulation. Clin Chem 1974;20:738.
Westgard JO, Groth T, Aronsson T, Falk H, de Verdier C-H. Performance characteristics of rules for internal quality control: probabilities for false rejection and error detection. Clin Chem 1977;23:1857–67.
Bishop JC, Nix ABJ. Comparison of quality control rules used in clinical chemistry laboratories. Clin Chem 1993;39:1638–49.
Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars Nucl Med 1978;8:283–98.
Causey AG, Hill HM, Phillips LJ. Evaluation of criteria for the acceptance of bioanalytical data. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1990;8:(8–12):625–8.
Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK, Biddle JA. Precision of DXA: development of quality control rules and their application to longitudinal studies. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:693–9.
Faulkner KG, McClung MR. Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials. Osteoporos Int 1995;5:218–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garland, S.W., Lees, B. & Stevenson, J.C. Dxa longitudinal quality control: a comparison of inbuilt quality assurance, visual inspection, multi-rule shewhart charts and cusum analysis. Osteoporosis Int 7, 231–237 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01622294
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01622294