Diagnostic efficacy of a novel bedside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry device for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: a prospective cohort study
7 affiliations
- 1Department of Orthopedics, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou
- 2Department of Spine Surgery, Wuxi Ninth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Wuxi
- 3Department of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital Affiliated to Xi’an Jiaotong University
- 4Department of Orthopedics, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Yangzhou
- 5Department of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan
- 6Department of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing
- 7Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan
Abstract
Background: Osteoporosis is a prevalent systemic skeletal disorder with reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and elevated fracture risk, constituting a major global public-health burden. Conventional axial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the WHO-endorsed diagnostic gold-standard, requires dedicated radiology facilities, limiting its use for hospitalized, bedridden and elderly patients. This prospective cohort study (Xuzhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital, March-June 2026) assessed diagnostic performance of a novel portable bedside DXA for osteoporosis (WHO criterion: T-score ≤ −2.5). Outpatient peripheral and axial DXA served as reference comparators; peripheral DXA was not treated as diagnostic gold-standard, as WHO criteria rely primarily on central axial DXA.
Methods: In total, 140 patients (mean age 68.2 ± 10.5 years, 91.4% female) completed four DXA scans within 72 h. An independent composite reference was built from three conventional DXA modalities, strictly excluding bedside DXA to avoid incorporation bias. Each conventional DXA modality was assessed against a leave-one-out independent reference standard that excludes the index modality itself. Pairwise head-to-head analyses between modalities were interpreted as comparative agreement between measurement tools rather than absolute diagnostic accuracy. Supplementary sensitivity analysis used a central-DXA-only WHO reference. Diagnostic metrics included AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen’s Kappa.
Results: Against the WHO reference, bedside DXA yielded AUC = 0.733, accuracy = 64.29%, sensitivity = 86.11%, specificity = 41.18%, PPV = 60.78%, NPV = 73.68%, with fair inter-method agreement (Kappa = 0.276). When each conventional DXA modality was evaluated against its respective leave-one-out reference standard, diagnostic performance was substantially reduced: accuracy was 62.86% for outpatient peripheral DXA, 58.57% for lumbar-spine axial DXA, and 42.14% for femoral-neck axial DXA. Sensitivity analysis against central-DXA-only WHO reference yielded attenuated performance estimates. Bedside-DXA T-scores showed significant positive correlations with T-scores from all conventional modalities (all P<0.001).
Conclusion: This novel bedside DXA possesses reliable diagnostic performance for osteoporosis when evaluated against an independent composite reference standard. As a practical point-of-care tool, it is promising for screening immobile inpatients, though peripheral-site measurements cannot fully replace WHO-standard central axial DXA assessment.
Related
- Diagnostic capabilities and monitoring the effectiveness of osteoporosis therapy using radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry in comparison with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry
- Prevalence of osteoporosis in healthy adult males in India measured by dual-energy-X-ray absorptiometry: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Clinical Diagnosis Versus Plain Radiography for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Prospective Study of Diagnostic Agreement in a Resource‐Limited Settings
- Osteoporosis: current diagnostic possibilities, a literature review
- Evaluation of six different tests for Schistosoma haematobium diagnosis in a near-elimination setting: A prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study
BibTeX
@article{luo2026diagnostic,
title = {{Diagnostic efficacy of a novel bedside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry device for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: a prospective cohort study}},
author = {Mingran Luo and Runji Liang and Xiaosheng Wang and Shujun Zhang and Baorong He and Yongxiang Wang and Xiaodong Guo and Jian Chen and Guoyong Yin and Baoliang Zhang and Feng Yuan and Li Xin},
journal = {Frontiers in Endocrinology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fendo.2026.1945348},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2026.1945348/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diagnostic efficacy of a novel bedside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry device for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: a prospective cohort study
AU - Mingran Luo
AU - Runji Liang
AU - Xiaosheng Wang
AU - Shujun Zhang
AU - Baorong He
AU - Yongxiang Wang
AU - Xiaodong Guo
AU - Jian Chen
AU - Guoyong Yin
AU - Baoliang Zhang
AU - Feng Yuan
AU - Li Xin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/13
JO - Frontiers in Endocrinology
DO - 10.3389/fendo.2026.1945348
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2026.1945348/full
AB - Background: Osteoporosis is a prevalent systemic skeletal disorder with reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and elevated fracture risk, constituting a major global public-health burden. Conventional axial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the WHO-endorsed diagnostic gold-standard, requires dedicated radiology facilities, limiting its use for hospitalized, bedridden and elderly patients. This prospective cohort study (Xuzhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital, March-June 2026) assessed diagnostic performance of a novel portable bedside DXA for osteoporosis (WHO criterion: T-score ≤ −2.5). Outpatient peripheral and axial DXA served as reference comparators; peripheral DXA was not treated as diagnostic gold-standard, as WHO criteria rely primarily on central axial DXA. Methods: In total, 140 patients (mean age 68.2 ± 10.5 years, 91.4% female) completed four DXA scans within 72 h. An independent composite reference was built from three conventional DXA modalities, strictly excluding bedside DXA to avoid incorporation bias. Each conventional DXA modality was assessed against a leave-one-out independent reference standard that excludes the index modality itself. Pairwise head-to-head analyses between modalities were interpreted as comparative agreement between measurement tools rather than absolute diagnostic accuracy. Supplementary sensitivity analysis used a central-DXA-only WHO reference. Diagnostic metrics included AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen’s Kappa. Results: Against the WHO reference, bedside DXA yielded AUC = 0.733, accuracy = 64.29%, sensitivity = 86.11%, specificity = 41.18%, PPV = 60.78%, NPV = 73.68%, with fair inter-method agreement (Kappa = 0.276). When each conventional DXA modality was evaluated against its respective leave-one-out reference standard, diagnostic performance was substantially reduced: accuracy was 62.86% for outpatient peripheral DXA, 58.57% for lumbar-spine axial DXA, and 42.14% for femoral-neck axial DXA. Sensitivity analysis against central-DXA-only WHO reference yielded attenuated performance estimates. Bedside-DXA T-scores showed significant positive correlations with T-scores from all conventional modalities (all P<0.001). Conclusion: This novel bedside DXA possesses reliable diagnostic performance for osteoporosis when evaluated against an independent composite reference standard. As a practical point-of-care tool, it is promising for screening immobile inpatients, though peripheral-site measurements cannot fully replace WHO-standard central axial DXA assessment.
SN - 1664-2392
ER -