Any one had a Dexa scan that showed improvement in bone

HI Juno

Thanks for your reply.  Can't insist having Dexa on same machine with NHS UK,  My first 2 scans were on different machines, what is your source regarding the difference that can occur between one Dexa scanner and another?  I've heard it said before but know proof of its accuracy.

Thanks again V

Hi, I THINK it's to make sure you're comparing like with like - as different hospitals/clinics can calibrate the Dxa machines differently. Some machines are left with the makers 'default' setting and others are adjusted/set differently. Also there can be different 'margins of error' settings on a machine . . . You can Google this question and check.

When you have had your first scan at your local hospital, you won't be having another for apx. 2 years so just return to the same hospital OP clinic for the next one . ..      J

Lord, sorry, I missed the bit where you said you've already had 2 scans on didderent machine!.  If so, the results may not be as reliable as if done on the same machine. It seems the scan is looking at very minute changes indeed so machine settings are important. I suppose it's like taking a photo of the same scene( with an interval in between)  with 2 different cameras and one photo shows more detail though it's the same view. . . 

Vee, this is the GIST of what I've read over the past couple of years but don't take it as gospell. Check it out -  or someone here on the forum may know a lot more and may contribute.   J

Thanks again Juno, yest It was at the same hospital, they only have 3 Dexa machines I think unless of course they have just one and changed rooms from my first scan back in 2000   guess I could check that out.

Between the first and second Dexa scan bone thinned further by .3 % in the spine and .1% in hip, minimal thinning in 4 years really and I did put it to the rheumatologist if the  amount could be due to normal bone thinning one gets with age, he couldn't say either way though.

that is 0.3% and 0.1% further thinning from one Dexa to another 4 years later.

 

It's great to be getting positive feedback. There is nothing out there thats perfect, but it is the same with many cancers, MS and even the common cold. We just have to work with what we have, for now anyway. When you've done the diet and exercise bit for 40 years, and still got OP, there is not a lot left to try.

Hi diana, great to have your feedback. please do share with us how you are getting on with Prolia.  Wishing you all the best on that.

I've found something on wiki about same machine each time but it also says a citation is need to confirm the source of information so I am still no further in knowing the credibility or source  (wiki info you understand can be published by anyone who registers).

Best wishes diana and looking forward to hearing more how you are finding Prolia.

wiki has something about the calibration varying from manufacture to manufacture, but it says "citation needed, the claim needs references to reliable sources"

and there are none that I can find, pity the person who wrote that on wiki didn't include the source.

The calibration will almost certainly vary between service technicians unless there is a strictly followed quality assurance system. I've only once come across such a system and the technical staff were always fighting against it because it involves snooping and double-checking and people don't like this. It also cost to have such a system because of the additional independent personnel required to 'police' it. This results in a spread of calibrations all of which have error margins and will give results which are questionable. Unfortunately sad for us but money rules again.

I've just been chatting with my sister who once was a radiologist, she says:

"I'm not up to date anymore on the type of machines, but all machines have to be calibrated otherwise you would never be able to compare results, so I would say there should be no difference regardless of old or new, if it's the same scan that has been done "

I mentioned that some thought each machine could be calibrated differently depending on the manufacturer etc.  her reply:

There may be minimal variations between machines whether old or new, changed or not, but there must be a comparability otherwise you could not compare results - even the same machine may produce minimal variables over its life, but all machines have to be regularly calibrated and these minimal variables should be accounted for in the results - otherwise you simply can't compare results at all. "

My sister worked as a radiologist at the same hospital I attend for the Dexa scan, that's NHS UK

But still I could do with some written credible detail on this, UK source preferably. Of course if the calibration only has minimal change even on the same machine over time then that is of course what the specialising consultants have to go by and if they are aware of this slight variation they can of course take this into account when assessing their patient.

When you think about it, not one set up will be able to offer the same machine to each patient having repeat Dexa scan as soon or later that machine may need to be replaced. 

.

 

Hi Vee

I agree with what you're post says but when some of the posters are talking about fractional percentage changes, even a very small discrepancy over time can make a difference to how people feel rather than actual real effect, for instance when considering whether you have Osteopenia or Osteoporosis, a fractional error can put you into a different category and affect treatment etc. but it is impossible to have all machines perfectly in calibration with each other or themselves over a period of time. There will always be error margins, it's really a case of making these errors as small as possible and to some extent that is dependent upon the operational and servicing personnel. Just have to hope that they didn't have a bad day!

LOL yes always hoping the docs I see are having a good day and that get a real accurate machine doing the measuring