Literature DB >> 12108600

Performance of risk indices for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal women.

Piet Geusens1, Marc C Hochberg, Danny J M van der Voort, Huibert Pols, Marjolein van der Klift, Ethel Siris, Mary E Melton, Jennifer Turpin, Christine Byrnes, Philip Ross.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of 4 published osteoporosis risk indices to identify women with low bone density. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects included postmenopausal women 45 years and older consecutively recruited from US clinics, women from general practice centers in The Netherlands (age range, 50-80 years), women in the Rotterdam Study (The Netherlands) 55 years and older, and women aged 55 to 81 years old screened for a clinical trial of alendronate. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at the femoral neck or lumbar spine; T scores represent the number of SDs below the mean for young healthy women. One risk index was calculated from age and weight; the other risk indices included up to 4 additional variables obtained by questionnaire. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for identifying women with BMD T scores of -2.5 or less or -2.0 or less in the US clinic sample and created 3 risk categories, using each of the 4 indices.
RESULTS: Data were available for 1102 women from the US clinic sample, 3374 women in the Rotterdam Study, 23,833 women screened for a clinical trial of alendronate, and 4204 women from general practice centers in The Netherlands. Specificity for identifying BMD T scores of -2.5 or less ranged from 37% to 58% (depending on risk index) when sensitivity was approximately 90%. The prevalence of osteoporosis (defined as T scores < or = -2.5) differed widely across the 3 risk categories, ranging from 2% to 4% for the low-risk category to 47% to 61% for the high-risk category in the US clinic sample. For spine BMD in the US clinic sample, the prevalence of T scores of -2.5 or less ranged from 7% (low risk) to 38% (high risk). The large differences in prevalence across risk categories were consistent across the other 3 samples of postmenopausal women in the United States and The Netherlands for all 4 risk indices.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend measuring BMD in women who are classified as having an increased risk of osteoporosis by using any of these risk indices because all 4 indices appear to predict low bone mass equally well. The Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool index is easiest to calculate and therefore may be most useful in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12108600     DOI: 10.4065/77.7.629

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  44 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Smita Nayak; Mark S Roberts; Susan L Greenspan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  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

3.  Osteoporosis case finding in the general practice: phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry with and without risk factors for osteoporosis to select postmenopausal women eligible for lumbar spine and hip densitometry.

Authors:  Katharina M Gasser; Christian Mueller; Marcel Zwahlen; Manfred Kaufmann; Gaby Fuchs; Romain Perrelet; Gilbert Abetel; Ulrich Bürgi; Kurt Lippuner
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-02-12       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Use of dental panoramic radiographs in identifying younger postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Authors:  Akira Taguchi; Mikio Tsuda; Masahiko Ohtsuka; Ichiro Kodama; Mitsuhiro Sanada; Takashi Nakamoto; Koji Inagaki; Toshihide Noguchi; Yoshiki Kudo; Yoshikazu Suei; Keiji Tanimoto; Anne-Marie Bollen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  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

6.  Canadian Consensus Conference on osteoporosis, 2006 update.

Authors:  Jacques P Brown; Michel Fortier; Heather Frame; André Lalonde; Alexandra Papaioannou; Vyta Senikas; Chui Kin Yuen
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2006-02

7.  Development of a clinical assessment tool in identifying Asian men with low bone mineral density and comparison of its usefulness to quantitative bone ultrasound.

Authors:  Annie W C Kung; Andrew Y Y Ho; Philip D Ross; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-12-21       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review.

Authors:  B Rud; J Hilden; L Hyldstrup; A Hróbjartsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women 50 to 64 years old: comparison of US Preventive Services Task Force strategy and two traditional strategies in the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  The impact of the use of multiple risk indicators for fracture on case-finding strategies: a mathematical approach.

Authors:  Chris De Laet; Anders Odén; Helena Johansson; Olof Johnell; Bengt Jönsson; John A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-07-06       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.