008 \times \textHTOTBM\textD_\textHologic + 0.006} \right)} \hfill \\ \textsBM\textD_\textTotal\,\texthip = \left( 0.979 \times \textHTOTBM\textD_\textLunar – 0.031 \right) \hfill \\ \textsBM\textD_\textNeck of the sBMD values, the original Nabilone 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 INCB018424 nmr 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.