Literature DB >> 11595621

Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in a sample of white women from Belgium.

W Ben Sedrine1, J P Devogelaer, J M Kaufman, S Goemaere, G Depresseux, B Zegels, R Deroisy, J Y Reginster.   

Abstract

Identifying patients at risk of developing an osteoporosis-related fracture will continue to be a challenge. The "gold standard" for osteoporosis diagnosis is bone densitometry. However, economic issues or availability of the technology may prevent its use under a mass screening scenario. A risk assessment instrument, the "simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation" (SCORE), has been reported to appropriately identify women likely to have low (t score < or = -2 SD) bone mineral density (BMD) and who should be referred for bone densitometry. The aim of our study is to evaluate the discriminatory performance of SCORE in a random sample of postmenopausal white women from Belgium. For this purpose, we gathered medical data on 4035 consecutive patients aged > or = 45 years, either consulting spontaneously or referred for a BMD measurement to an outpatient osteoporosis center located at the University of Liège, Belgium. BMD measurements, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology, were taken at the hip (total and neck) and lumbar spine (L2-4). At the recommended cutoff point of 6, SCORE had a sensitivity of 91.5% to detect low BMD at any of the measured sites, a specificity of 26.5%, a positive predictive value of 52.8%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7%. According to SCORE, 18% of the patients would not be recommended for densitometry. Among these, 10.9% were misclassified as they had osteoporosis (t score < or = -2.5 SD) at one or more of the sites investigated. The negative predictive errors of SCORE, when failing to detect osteoporosis, were only 1% for the total hip, 3.2% for the femoral neck, and 8.8% for the lumbar spine. We conclude that, notwithstanding the high values of sensitivity, SCORE specificity is too low to be useful as a diagnostic tool for screening patients at high risk to later develop osteoporosis. Nevertheless, from a resource allocation perspective, this instrument can be used with relative confidence to exclude patients who do not need a BMD measurement, and would therefore provide an opportunity to realize substantial cost savings in comparison to a mass screening strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11595621     DOI: 10.1016/s8756-3282(01)00583-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  17 in total

Review 1.  Prescreening tools to determine who needs DXA.

Authors:  Elliott N Schwartz; Dee M Steinberg
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  B Rud; J E B Jensen; L Mosekilde; S P Nielsen; J Hilden; B Abrahamsen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-09-30       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density.

Authors:  S Nayak; D L Edwards; A A Saleh; S L Greenspan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Comparison of questionnaire and quantitative ultrasound techniques as screening tools for DXA.

Authors:  R B Cook; D Collins; J Tucker; P Zioupos
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-10       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

Authors:  A M Schott; C Ganne; D Hans; G Monnier; R Gauchoux; M A Krieg; P D Delmas; P J Meunier; C Colin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  The relationship between social deprivation, osteoporosis, and falls.

Authors:  Derek Pearson; Rachel Taylor; Tahir Masud
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-12-18       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  The implication of assessing a polymorphism in estrogen receptor alpha gene in the risk assessment of osteoporosis using a screening tool for osteoporosis in Asians.

Authors:  Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul; Suwannee Chanprasertyothin; Penpan Payattikul; Sunee Saetung; Rajata Rajatanavin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older.

Authors:  M L Gourlay; J M Powers; L-Y Lui; K E Ensrud
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-01-25       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Validation of the Dutch guidelines for dual X-ray absorptiometry measurement.

Authors:  Noortje A Verdijk; Arnold C Romeijnders; Jos J Ruskus; Corien van der Sluijs; Victor J Pop
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Performance of simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation in a sample of women with suspected osteoporosis in the Turkish population.

Authors:  M Karkucak; E Capkin; S Kerimoglu; M Serdaroglu; M Topbas; H Yildiz; M Guler
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 2.631

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.