Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 96472

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : August | Volume : 5 | Issue : 4 | Page : 694 - 699

Comparison between the QCT and the DEXA Scanners in the Evaluation of BMD in the Lumbar Spine

Bansal S.C., Khandelwal N., Rai D.V, Sen R., Bhadada S.K., Sharma K.A. Goswami N.

Lecturer, Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER Chandigarh & PhD scholar, Department of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh Professor and Head, Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER Chandigarh. Former Professor Department of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh & Director, Centre of Biomedical Engineering Shobhit University, Meerut. Professor, Department of Orthopaedics PGIMER. Associate professor, Department of Endocrinology PGIMER Chandigarh. Supervisor technologist, Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER Chandigarh. Senior Technologist, Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER Chandigarh.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. S.C. Bansal, Lecturer (Radio-diagnosis),
PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Email:; Mob: +91-9914209389


Introduction: Both QCT and DEXA scanners are being used for determination of BMD in lumbar spine in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. But till now, no consensus has been reached that out of QCT or DEXA scanner which modality is most efficacious in the diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Objectives: To evaluate BMD in lumbar spine of the same subjects under similar conditions both by QCT and DEXA scanners on the same day and to compare their findings in evaluating these subjects as osteoporotic, osteopenic or normal.

Materials and Methods: In this cross sectional study a population of 165 subjects both male and female which included 37 young healthy volunteers, 46 post menopausal females, 32 elderly patients above 65 years of age, 15 patients between 40- 65 years of age and 35 patients on steroid therapy for more than 6 months period underwent bone densitometry both by QCT and DEXA scanners. Light Speed Plus CT scanner of GE and DEXA scanner Norland XR 46 were used for measurement of BMD and accordingly, these subjects were diagnosed as osteoporotic, osteopenic and normal on the basis of WHO defined criteria of T score.

Results: In the present study QCT has diagnosed more cases of osteoporosis (both osteopenic and osteoporotic) as compared to DEXA lateral and DEXA AP in the total population as well as in females and males separately. In the total population, 67.3% (111) cases were diagnosed for osteoporosis by QCT as compared to 46.7% (77) and 49.7% (82) cases by DEXA lateral and DEXA AP respectively. In females, 75.8% (97) cases were diagnosed for osteoporosis by QCT as compared to 52.3% (67) each by DEXA lateral & DEXA AP. Similarly in males 37.8% (14) cases were diagnosed for osteoporosis by QCT as compared to 27% (10 ) cases by DEXA lateral and 40.6% (15 ) cases by DEXA AP.

Conclusion: Both the modalities confirm the direct correlation between age and osteoporosis, as with increasing age the risk of prevalence of osteoporosis increased across all age groups. But QCT has been found to be more efficacious than DEXA scan in the diagnosis of osteoporosis i.e. QCT helps discriminate between normal subjects and those with osteoporosis better than DEXA-lateral and DEXA-AP.


QCT, DEXA, BMD, Lumbar spine, T-score, Z-score, Osteoporosis

Bone density (g/cm3) is the amount of bone tissue in a certain volume of bone (1). It is often very difficult to establish its measure without damaging the bone therefore, the term bone mineral density (gm/cm2) is used instead. BMD is the most important determinant of bone fragility to evaluate osteoporosis (2). Patients with reduced bone mineral density have increased risk of fracture, the incidence of which particularly at the hip and spine increases with age in both women and men. BMD can be measured in a variety of sites with a variety of techniques. Numerous methods have been used for quantitative assessment of the skeleton in osteoporosis, with variable precision, accuracy and sensitivity. The requirements for a clinically useful measurement of BMD differ depending on the specific clinical problems under investigation. For serial determination in a given patient, precision and sensitivity are critical. When used as a diagnostic procedure to identify a patient with osteoporosis, accuracy and sensitivity are required (3). Thus precision and accuracy of DEXA and QCT scanners are key issues when interpreting BMD measurements in clinical practice. The annual BMD loss in most postmenopausal women varies from 0.5% to 2%, and the increase in BMD following anti resorptive drugs is only around 1-6% in 3 years. Hence, minimizing precision errors in bone densitometry is critical, since lower precision errors allow for early detection of smaller changes in BMD (4).

A particular problem and serious controversies have evolved from the fact that results which have been obtained on different scanners do not agree or can hardly be compared. In the assessment of osteoporosis, the measurement of BMD obtained from DEXA is the most widely used technique because of its ease of use, low radiation exposure and its ability to measure BMD at both the hip and spine (5). DEXA can also be used to measure peripheral sites such as the wrist and finger. Whereas, QCT allows for a true three dimensional bone density measurement without superimposition of other tissues and provides accurate anatomic localization of measured volume. Although not as widely used as DEXA, the main advantages of QCT are separate measurement of trabecular and cortical bone i.e. high sensitivity of the vertebral spongiosa measurement site and potential for widespread use (6). QCT results into exclusion of extraosseous calcifications such as aortic sclerosis and plaques, ligament calcifications, osteophytes and any other overlying tissues that can influence projectional BMD measurements when measured by DEXA. Whereas, the limitation of QCT is its slightly higher radiation dose than DEXA and that the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of osteoporosis in terms of bone densitometry (T score with S.D. –2.5 or below as used in DEXA) is not applicable. At present no consensus has been reached that out of QCT or DEXA which modality is more efficacious in the diagnosis and serial assessment of osteoporosis in an individualpatient or in diagnostic screening of large population. On literature review it has been observed that different studies (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) (16) have given different observations in comparing the findings of these two most commonly used modalities. However in recent years the use of QCT has increased with the advent of new developments in CT technique and recognition of its advantages over DEXA (17). Since both these modalities, DEXA and QCT scanners are available in our institute and no such kind of study has ever been conducted in context to Indian population, it tempted us to undertake this study to compare their findings in evaluating the same patients as osteoporotic, osteopenic or normal.

Aims and Objective The objective of this study was to determine the bone mineral density of lumbar spine (L3 vertebrae) in both male and female subjects of various age groups by using both QCT and DEXA scanners and to compare their findings in discriminating the same subjects as osteoporotic, osteopenic or normal. This will help us to know which modality diagnoses more number of osteoporosis (both osteopenic as well as osteoporotic) cases in the same kind of subjects and be considered more efficacious than the other in accurate measurement of bone density. Accordingly, this will result in starting the treatment regimen early and decrease the future risk of fracture related to osteoporosis in lumbar spine.

Material and Methods

In this cross sectional study, a population of 165 subjects both female 77.6 % (128) and male 22.4 % (37) was included(Table/Fig 1).

It comprised of 37 young healthy volunteers (20 females and 17 males) between 20-40 years with mean age 22.62 years ( who were either patients’ relatives or staff members with no known history of any disease) – Group A and patients of various age groups comprising of 15 patients (9 pre menopausal females and6 males) between 41 years and 64 years with mean age of 48.53 years – Group B, 46 patients (post menopausal females) between 41 years and 64 years with mean age 55.11years – Group C, 32 elderly patients (25 females and 7 males)above 65 years of age with mean age 70.25years – Group D and 35 patients (29 females including 18 premenopausal and 6 males) on steroid therapy for more than six months period with mean age 45.91 years - Group E [Table/Fig-2]. All these patients visited the out patient department of Nehru Hospital of PGIMER Chandigarh for consultation during the period from January 2008 to January 2011 and were advised bone densitometry by their clinicians. The study protocol was approved by the institute ethics committee and prior informed consent from each participant was taken.

Inclusion criteria: All the patients except young healthy volunteers included in this study were advised bone densitometry by their concerned clinicians on the basis of clinical findings.

Exclusion criteria: All the subjects excluded in this study were those who had the history for recent radionuclide uptake procedures (within ten half lives), recent ingestion of radio-opaque substances e.g. barium or dyes used in X-ray examination and had prosthetic devices, implants, surgical staples or other high density sub dermal materials that may effect density estimates.

All these subjects were subjected to both QCT of lumbar spine (L1 – L3 vertebrae) as well as DEXA of lumbar spine both in AP and Lateral position on Light Speed Plus CT scanner of G.E (installed in Nehru hospital) and Norland XR 46 DEXA scanner (installed in OPD) respectively on the same day .The age, height, weight, BMI, menopausal status in females (Table/Fig 1) (Table/Fig 2) along with history of any disease and treatment course if any was recorded. In each case, the bone mineral density, T score and Z score of Lumbar spine (L-3 vertebrae) was measured both by QCT and DEXA scan separately (Table/Fig 3).

QCT Scanning & Evaluation Subjects were positioned supine on the CT scanner table, lying on top of QCT calibration phantom and bolus bag (gel pack) with the end of the phantom approximately at the iliac crest to ensure that L4 to T10 was covered by the phantom so that the feet entered the scanner first. The knees were elevated to flatten the back and achieve close contact with the phantom. Pillows were placed under the shoulders and head of patient for comfort. The patient’s arms were raised and were out of the field of view. Patients were instructed to remain still and breathe normally during the study. First a lateral scout view of lumbar spine was taken at 120 KVp and 80mA. The scout view provided localization of the axial scans in the vertebral mid planes of three lumbar vertebras (L1–L3). Slices of 10 mm thickness were acquired parallel to the vertebral endplates with large scan field of view at 120 KVp & 160 mA. The scan time for each vertebra was 2 sec.

The QCT derived BMD was determined using QCT - 5000 Bone Densitometry software [version 6.02] according to the directions provided by Image Analysis, Inc. The analysis was performed by positioning a circular region of interest (ROI) centred over the body of vertebra. BMD of each vertebra (L1-L3) was calculated in mg/cc and from these values mean BMD was calculated. T and Z scores based on UPDATED REFERENCE CURVE (December 1999) were also calculated.

Dexa Scanning & Evaluation BMD was measured with Norland XR 46 DEXA scanner installed in OPD section of our institute. DEXA scanner was maintained according to the manufacturer‘s recommendations including the performance of daily quality control calibrations. All the BMD measurements were performed by the experienced technologists who performed the same procedure for patient positioning and analysis and all the subjects were examined in both AP and Lateral positions. The AP spine scan procedure estimated bone mineral in the lumbar spine using a posterior-anterior projection with region of interest L2–L3-L4 segment which was analyzed for individual and total vertebrae. The analysis excluded transverse vertebral process areas from the bone mineral estimations. The scan started at the Xiphoid process and ended just below the iliac crests. The scan procedure included an auto centring routine to ensure the spine was centred and straight in the scan area. The Lateral spine scan procedure estimated bone mineral in the lumbar spine using a lateral projection. The region of interest was the L2-L3-L4 vertebral bodies. The scout scan started 2 cm above the lowest point of the rib cage and extended to 2 cm below the iliac crest along a centre line that is approximately 10 cm anterior to the patient’s back. Results were displayed automatically.

DEXA scan was analyzed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and results were obtained in absolute values (g/cm2), inT score and in Z score on the basis of W.H.O. defined criteria. T score is the number of standard deviations from the mean of a healthy young adult population (20–40 years old); it is used for the definition of osteopenia (T score below –1.0 and above –2.5) and osteoporosis (T-score –2.5 or less). Z-score is the number of standard deviations from the mean of a healthy age- and gendermatched normal population, which allowed the comparison of BMD between patients of different age and gender.

Statistical analysis The Statistical Analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, Version 15.0 for Windows). Data was checked for skewness by Kolmogorov Smirnov tests of normality. For normally distributed data means were compared using student’s t-test for two groups. For more than two groups one way ANOVA or KruskalWallis test was applied. Proportions were compared using Chi square or Fisher’s exact test whichever was applicable. All statistical tests were two sided and performed at a significant level of α=.05.


In the present study out of 165 subjects QCT has diagnosed 67.3% (111), DEXA lateral diagnosed 46.7% (77) and DEXA AP 49.7% (82) cases of osteoporosis (both osteopenic and osteoporotic) (Table/Fig 4).

In females vs males mean BMD value measured was 117.75mg/cc vs 147.42mg/cc , 0.55 gm/cm2 vs 0.71gm/cm2 and 0.89gm/cm2 vs 1gm/cm2 by QCT, DEXA lateral and in DEXA AP respectively (Table/Fig 5). Whereas in female QCT diagnosed 75.8% (97) cases for osteoporosis (both osteopenic and osteoporotic) as compared to 52.3% (67) each diagnosed by DEXA lateral & DEXA AP. Similarly in males 37.8% (14) cases were diagnosed for osteoporosis (both osteopenic and osteoporotic) by QCT as compared to 27% (10 ) cases by DEXA lateral and 40.6% (15 ) cases by DEXA AP (Table/Fig 6).

Comparison of diagnosis of Osteoporosis B/W Various Groups on the basis of T-score by QCT and DEXA

In group A comprising 37 young volunteers, QCT diagnosed 92% (34) normal and 8% (3) as osteopenic, Dexa-lateral diagnosed 86.5% (32) as normal, 13.5% (5) as osteopenic and Dexa-AP diagnosed 73% (27) as normal, 24.3% (9) as osteopenic, 2.7% (1) as osteoporotic (Table/Fig 7).

In group B comprising 15 patients of age group 40yrs - 64 yrs. QCT diagnosed 20% (3) normal, 46.7% (7) osteopenic, 33.3% (5) osteoporotic, Dexa-lateral diagnosed 53.3% (8) as normal, 26.7% (4) osteopenic and 20% (3) osteoporotic and Dexa-AP diagnosed 53.3% (8) as normal, 20% (3) osteopenic and 26.7% (4) osteoporotic (Table/Fig 8)

In group C comprising 46 post menopausal females patients QCT diagnosed 10.9% (5) normal, 26.1% (12) osteopenic, 63% (29) osteoporotic, Dexa-lateral diagnosed 32.6% (15) as normal, 28.3% (13) osteopenic and 39.1% (18) osteoporotic and Dexa-AP diagnosed 37% (17) as normal, 43.5% (20) osteopenic and 19.5% (9) osteoporotic (Table/Fig 9).

In group D comprising 32 elderly patients of age ≥ 65years QCT diagnosed 3.1% (1) as normal, 28.1% (9) osteopenic, 68.8% (22) osteoporotic, Dexa-lateral diagnosed 40.6% (13) as normal, 21.9% (7) osteopenic and 37.5% (12) osteoporotic and Dexa-AP diagnosed 31.1% (10) as normal, 20.8% (9) osteopenic and 40.1% (13) osteoporotic (Table/Fig 10).

In group E comprising 35 patients on steroid therapy QCT diagnosed 31.4%(11) normal, 40%(14) osteopenic, 28.6%(10) osteoporotic, Dexa-lateral diagnosed 57.1%(20) as normal, 22.9%(8) osteopenic and 20%(7) osteoporotic and Dexa-AP diagnosed 21(60%) as normal, 34.3% (12) osteopenic and 5.7% (2) osteoporotic (Table/Fig-11).


In this study both the modalities i.e. QCT and DEXA scanners have confirmed that there is a direct correlation between age and osteoporosis as with increasing age the risk of prevalence of osteoporosis (decrease in BMD) has also increased in all the different groups evaluated. Further QCT has diagnosed more cases of osteoporosis as compared to DEXA Lateral and DEXA AP in the total population [Table/Fig-12] as well as separately in all the female and male subjects (Table/Fig 4) (This is due to the fact that QCT performs cross sectional scanning and measures actual volumetric density, thus provides separate estimates of thetrabecular and cortical bone and it is unaffected by the presence of osteophytes and other degenerative changes which mask the true BMD changes as measured by DEXA scan resulting into its diagnosing false normal cases and under estimating osteoporosis). This finding is in consistence with previous reported study (15).

Also, in all the groups (B,C,D and E) except group A , QCT has diagnosed more cases of osteoporosis as compared to DEXA Lateral and DEXA AP. Whereas, in group A , QCT has diagnosed lesser number of osteoporosis cases i.e. 8% as compared to 13.5% and 27% diagnosed by DEXA lateral and DEXA AP respectively which is unexplainable. Further in group C, the incidence of osteoporosis evaluated by QCT is 89%, by DEXA lateral is 67.4% and by DEXA AP is 63% which is much higher in QCT but slightly higher in DEXA AP & lateral than the previously reported study (18). Similarly in group D, the incidence of osteoporosis evaluated by QCT is 97%, by DEXA lateral is 59.4% and DEXA AP is 69% which is much higher in QCT but in conformity by DEXA with the previously reported study (19).

This study has also confirmed that there is a direct correlation between height and BMD in both QCT and DEXA AP except DEXA lateral in all the groups except group A as with increasing height, BMD has also increased (Table/Fig-2 & 3).


In both the scanning modalities there is direct correlation between age and osteoporosis as with increasing age the incidence of osteoporosis increased in all the groups. But QCT has been found to be more efficacious than DEXA scan in the diagnosis of osteoporosis i.e. QCT helps discriminate between normal subjects and those with osteoporosis better than DEXA – Lateral and DEXA-AP.

Further, on the basis of clinical history of the patients and other defined parameters it has been observed that still more studies with a large volume of data need to be done .This will help in establishing the exact comparison between QCT and DEXA scanning for determination of BMD in making out the accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis as K value was 0.311, 0.303 and 0.346 [Table/Fig-13] which is a fair agreement between each of these two.

Limitations With the available QCT scanner, the study of only lumbar spine was possible to assess BMD whereas with the DEXA scanner apart from peripheral sites, hip and lumbar spine could also be measured to assess the BMD. Hence, we could do this study only in lumbar spine to accurately compare the findings of these two modalities in the same region. Further, for this study T score and Z score only for L-3 vertebra were considered as Dexa – Lateral measures BMD of L-3 vertebra only (because of overlying rib and iliac crest affecting measurements in other lumbar vertebrae). Therefore, for accuratecomparison of these modalities we have considered values for L3 vertebrae only, both in QCT and DEXA.


Li Chen. λ Measure for Bone Density Connectivity, IEEE ISIE 2006: 489-494.
Bauer S Jan, Link M Thomas. Advances in osteoporosis imaging. European Journal of Radiology 2009 ; 71 :440-449.
Donald Resnick. Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders, WB Saunders Fourth Edition 2002; 3; 1816, 1864.
Shepherd JA, Fan B, Lu Y, Lewiecki EM, Miller P, Genant HK. Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Osteoporosis Int. 2006; 17(9):1303-08.
Bone Densitometry: DEXA vs. QCT, BJC Heath-Connected care 1-3.
Genet H.K. Assessing osteoporosis: CT’s Quantitative Advantage. Diagnostic Imaging 1985:233-239.
Adams J. E. Developments in QCT & Comparisons with DEXA. RSNA 2000:242.
Adams J .E. . Non invasive bone mass measurement: Techniques and applications. Advanced Hospital Technology 1992, Vol 1:490.
Adams J E, Alsop C, Harrison EJ, et al. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT): The forgotten gold standard. J Bone Miner Res 2000; 15 (Suppl 1):S169.
Baran D.T, Faulkner K. G, Genant H.K et al. Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis: Guidelines for Utilization of Bone Densitometry. Calcified Tissue International 1997; 61:433-440.
Faulkner K. Measurements of Axial and Peripheral Bone Mass by QCT, National Osteoporosis Foundation; Bone Mass Measurement in Osteoporosis and other Bone Diseases; November 1995.
Rosenthal D.L, W. Mayo Smith, C. Hayas et al. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1989; 4; 533-538
Genant, H.K. Non invasive Assessment of the Skeleton: Current Status, Osteoporosis Report (National Osteoporosis Foundation) Summer 1995; 11;2
Economou G., Rushton S., Adams J.E. et al . Precision of Lateral DXA and Correlation with QCT. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 1994; 9; 5274.
Guglielmi G, Grimston S.I.K, Fischer K.C, et al, Osteoporosis: Diagnosis with Lateral and Posteroanterior Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry Compared with Quantitative CT. Radiology 1994; 192; 845-850.
McClung MR. Bone Mass Measurement in Osteoporosis and Other Bone Diseases. Quality Assurance in Bone Mass Measurements. National Osteoporosis Foundation, 11/1995:990.
Bauer J.S., Virmani S., Mueller D.K., Quantitative CT to assess BMD as a diagnostic tool for osteoporosis and related fractures. Medica Mundi 2010: 54/2, 31-37.
Kumar Vijay, Khandelwal N, Bansal S.C., Rai J. Study of incidence of senile and post – menopausal osteoporosis using femoral trabecular pattern index. Indian Journal of Orthopedics. 1992; 126:134.
Chhibber G, Roy R, Eunice M, Srivastava M, Ammini AC. Prevalence of osteoporosis among elderly women living in Delhi and rural Haryana. IJEM 2007: 11(1&2) 11-14.

DOI and Others


JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)