Does a Novice Technician Produce Results Similar to That of an Experienced DXA Technician When Assessing Body Composition and Bone Mineral Density?

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry is a commonly used clinical assessment tool for body composition and bone mineral density, which is gaining popularity in athletic cohorts. Results from body composition scans are useful for athletic populations to track training and nutritional interventions, whilst bone mineral density scans are valuable for athletes at risk of developing stress fractures due to low bone mineral density. However, no research has ascertained if a novice technician (accredited but not experienced) could produce similar results to an experienced technician. Two groups of recreational athletes were scanned, one by an experienced technician, one by a novice technician. All participants were scanned twice with repositioning between scans. The experienced technician\u27s reliability (ICC 0.989 - 0.998, percentage change in mean -0.01 - 0.10), precision (typical error as CV% 0.01 to 0.47. standard error of measurement percentage 0.61% - 1.39%) and sensitivity to change (smallest real difference percentage 1.70% - 3.85%) were similar, however superior, to those of the novice technician. The novice technician results were: reliability (ICC 0.985 - 0.997, percentage change in mean -0.03 - 0.23), precision (typical error as CV% 0.03 - 0.75%, standard error of measurement percentage 1.06% - 2.12%) and sensitivity to change (smallest real difference percentage 2.73% - 5.86%). Extensive experience whilst valuable is not a necessary requirement to produce quality results when undertaking whole body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning

Reliability and Precision of the Nana Protocol to Assess Body Composition Using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry

The Nana positioning protocol is widely used to position participants to minimize technical error when undertaking body composition scanning and analysis with a Dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine. Once biological and technical errors are accounted for, the only variation in test–retest results is from statistical fluctuation or machine error. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the test–retest reliability of the Nana positioning protocol and establish the smallest real difference percentage (SRD%). A gender-balanced group of 30 participants (15 males, 15 females) underwent two scans in succession using the Nana positioning protocol, with repositioning between scans. Percentage change in mean with typical error, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and standard error measurement percentage (SEM%) were used to identify the test–retest reliability and error rate of these protocols. Additionally, SRD% was calculated to assess the point at which clinically important changes occurred in a participant. The reliabilities of the whole body and regional scans were excellent. Percentage change in mean ranged between 0.00% and 0.23%. High reproducibility of the Nana positioning protocol was evident through an ICC ranging between 0.966–1.000. Additionally, typical error, SEM%, and SRD% were all low. Interestingly, fat mass was associated with the largest fluctuations observed to be associated with any of the parameters assessed. When all sources of biological and technical errors have been accounted for, the Nana positioning protocol has excellent test–retest reliability and produces low SEM% and SRD%

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry positioning protocols in assessing body composition: A systematic review of the literature:A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify and assess methods and protocols used to reduce technical and biological errors in published studies that have investigated reliability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for assessing body composition. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Systematic searches of five databases were used to identify studies of DXA reliability. Two independent reviewers used a modified critical appraisal tool to assess their methodological quality. Data was extracted and synthesised using a level of evidence approach. Further analysis was then undertaken of methods used to decrease DXA errors (technical and biological) and so enhance DXA reliability. RESULTS: Twelve studies met eligibility criteria. Four of the articles were deemed high quality. Quality articles considered biological and technical errors when preparing participants for DXA scanning. The Nana positioning protocol was assessed to have a strong level of evidence. The studies providing this evidence indicated very high test–retest reliability (ICC 0.90–1.00 or less than 1% change in mean) of the Nana positioning protocol. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) positioning protocol was deemed to have a moderate level of evidence due to lack of high quality studies. However, the available studies found the NHANES positioning protocol had very high test–retest reliability. Evidence is limited and reported reliability has varied in papers where no specific positioning protocol was used or reported. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the strong level of evidence of excellent test–retest reliability that supports use of the Nana positioning protocol, it is recommended as the first choice for clinicians when using DXA to assess body composition

Investigating the level of agreement of two positioning protocols when using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in the assessment of body composition

Background Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a commonly used instrument for analysing segmental body composition (BC). The information from the scan guides the clinician in the treatment of conditions such as obesity and can be used to monitor recovery of lean mass following injury. Two commonly used DXA positioning protocols have been identified—the Nana positioning protocol and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Both protocols have been shown to be reliable. However, only one study has assessed the level of agreement between the protocols and ascertained the participants’ preference of protocol based upon comfort. Given the paucity of research in the field and the growing use of DXA in both healthy and pathological populations further research determining the most appropriate positioning protocol is warranted. Therefore, the aims of this study were to assess the level of agreement between results from the NHANES protocol and Nana protocol, and the participants’ preference of protocol based on comfort. Methods Thirty healthy participants (15 males, 15 females, aged 23–59 years) volunteered to participate in this study. These participants underwent two whole body DXA scans in a single morning (Nana positioning protocol and NHANES positioning protocol), in a randomised order. Each participant attended for scanning wearing minimal clothing and having fasted overnight, refrained from exercise in the past 24 h and voided their bladders. Level of agreement, comparing NAHNES to Nana protocol was assessed using an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and percentage change in mean. Limit of agreement comparing the two protocols were assessed using plots, mean difference and confidence limits. Participants were asked to indicate the protocol they found most comfortable. Results When assessing level of agreement between protocols both the ICC and CCC scores were very high and ranged from 0.987 to 0.997 for whole body composition, indicating excellent agreement between the Nana and NHANES protocols. Regional analysis (arms, legs, trunk) ICC scores, ranged between 0.966 and 0.996, CCC ranged between 0.964 and 0.997, change in mean percentage ranged between −0.58% and 0.37% which indicated a very high level of agreement. Limit of agreement analysis using mean difference ranged between −0.223 and 0.686 kg and 95% CL produced results ranging between −1.262 kg and 1.630 kg. The majority (80%) of participants found the NHANES positioning protocol more comfortable. Discussion This study reveals a strong level of agreement as illustrated by high ICC’s and CCC’s between the positioning protocols, however systematic bias within limit of agreement plot and a large difference in 95% confidence limits indicates that the protocols should not be interchanged when assessing an individual. The NHANES protocol affords greater participant comfort