008 \times \textHTOTBM\textD_\textHologic + 0.006} \right)} \hfill \\ \textsBM\textD_\textTotal\,\texthip = \left( 0.979 \times \textHTOTBM\textD_\textLunar – 0.031 \right) \hfill \\ ]# = \left( 1.087 \times

\textNeckBM\textD_\textHologic + 0.019 \right) \hfill \\ \textsBM\textD_\textNeck = \left( 0.939 \times \textNeckBM\textD_\textLunar – 0.023 \right) \hfill \\ \endarray $$ Although it is customary to represent sBMD in mg/cm2, we used g/cm2 throughout this paper for both BMD and sBMD values, to compare the magnitude of absolute differences before and after applying the standardization equations. Bland–Altman statistics [7] were used to test the agreement between the sBMD of the Apex and Prodigy. All the statistics were done using SAS software version 9.1. All the statistical tests were two-sided, and two BMD measures were considered significantly different when at least one p value of intercept or slope is 0.05 or less. The Deming regression

method was used to derive cross-calibration equations mimicking the approach used by Hui et al. [3] and Lu et al. [4] to take into account that both variables have measurement uncertainties. Since standardization equations are not available for BMC and AREA, and since it was desired to investigate the possible cause in disagreement buy INCB024360 of the sBMD values, the original Florfenicol Genant equations [8] were used to compare the Prodigy BMC and AREA to Hologic. The Genant equations for spine are $$ \beginarray*20c \textHol\_ARE\textA_\textGenant = \left( 0.873 \times \textLun\_AREA \right) + 8.808 \hfill \\ \textHol\_BM\textD_\textGenant = \left( 0.906 \times \textLun\_BMD \right) – 0.025 \hfill \\ \endarray $$BMC was calculated as BMDGenant × AREAGenant. Investigations into the hip ROIs in a similar fashion was not possible since the AREA relationships for the proximal femur were not published

in any reporting of the standardization study including Genant [8], Lu et al. [4], and Hui et al. [3]. Bland–Altman plots were again used to study the relationship of AREA and BMC. Results There were no statistically significant differences among the study facilities for age, height, weight, spinal BMD, and femoral BMDs. For all the study sites, the Prodigy BMD values were, as expected, significantly greater than the Hologic BMD values, as previously reported in Shepherd et al. [9] (see Table 1). The comparison of pooled Apex and Prodigy results is given in Table 2. The Apex and Prodigy BMD results were highly correlated with correlation coefficients (r values) that ranged from 0.91 (left neck) to 0.98 (spine). Before applying the universal standardization equations, all the BMD measures were significantly different between the Apex and Prodigy systems. The mean BMD differences (Apex − Prodigy) were −0.169 ± 0.