Literature DB >> 12730788

Device-specific weighted T-score for two quantitative ultrasounds: operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland.

D Hans1, F Hartl, M A Krieg.   

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are mainly applicable for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at the spine and hip levels. There is a growing demand for cheaper devices, free of ionizing radiation such as promising quantitative ultrasound (QUS). In common with many other countries, QUS measurements are increasingly used in Switzerland without adequate clinical guidelines. The T-score approach developed for DXA cannot be applied to QUS, although well-conducted prospective studies have shown that ultrasound could be a valuable predictor of fracture risk. As a consequence, an expert committee named the Swiss Quality Assurance Project (SQAP, for which the main mission is the establishment of quality assurance procedures for DXA and QUS in Switzerland) was mandated by the Swiss Association Against Osteoporosis (ASCO) in 2000 to propose operational clinical recommendations for the use of QUS in the management of osteoporosis for two QUS devices sold in Switzerland. Device-specific weighted "T-score" based on the risk of osteoporotic hip fractures as well as on the prediction of DXA osteoporosis at the hip, according to the WHO definition of osteoporosis, were calculated for the Achilles (Lunar, General Electric, Madison, Wis.) and Sahara (Hologic, Waltham, Mass.) ultrasound devices. Several studies (totaling a few thousand subjects) were used to calculate age-adjusted odd ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the prediction of osteoporotic fracture (taking into account a weighting score depending on the design of the study involved in the calculation). The ORs were 2.4 (1.9-3.2) and AUC 0.72 (0.66-0.77), respectively, for the Achilles, and 2.3 (1.7-3.1) and 0.75 (0.68-0.82), respectively, for the Sahara device. To translate risk estimates into thresholds for clinical application, 90% sensitivity was used to define low fracture and low osteoporosis risk, and a specificity of 80% was used to define subjects as being at high risk of fracture or having osteoporosis at the hip. From the combination of the fracture model with the hip DXA osteoporotic model, we found a T-score threshold of -1.2 and -2.5 for the stiffness (Achilles) determining, respectively, the low- and high-risk subjects. Similarly, we found a T-score at -1.0 and -2.2 for the QUI index (Sahara). Then a screening strategy combining QUS, DXA, and clinical factors for the identification of women needing treatment was proposed. The application of this approach will help to minimize the inappropriate use of QUS from which the whole field currently suffers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12730788     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-002-1358-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  22 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of preventing hip fracture in the general female population.

Authors:  J A Kanis; A Dawson; A Oden; O Johnell; C de Laet; B Jonsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds.

Authors:  J A Kanis; A Oden; O Johnell; B Jonsson; C de Laet; A Dawson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Precision and discriminatory ability of calcaneal bone assessment technologies.

Authors:  S L Greenspan; M L Bouxsein; M E Melton; A H Kolodny; J H Clair; P T Delucca; M Stek; K G Faulkner; E S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density.

Authors:  L Mosekilde; S M Bentzen; G Ortoft; J Jørgensen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Discriminatory ability of quantitative ultrasound parameters and bone mineral density in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women with vertebral fractures: results of the Basel Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  F Hartl; A Tyndall; M Kraenzlin; C Bachmeier; C Gückel; U Senn; D Hans; R Theiler
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  J A Kanis; C C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Comparison of six calcaneal quantitative ultrasound devices: precision and hip fracture discrimination.

Authors:  C F Njeh; D Hans; J Li; B Fan; T Fuerst; Y Q He; E Tsuda-Futami; Y Lu; C Y Wu; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  An assessment tool for predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  D M Black; M Steinbuch; L Palermo; P Dargent-Molina; R Lindsay; M S Hoseyni; O Johnell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  D Marshall; O Johnell; H Wedel
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-18

10.  Reference data in a Swiss population. Discordance in patient classification using T-scores among calcaneum, spine, and femur.

Authors:  D Hans; R Rizzoli; D Thiébaud; K Lippuner; S Allaoua; L Genton; F Luzuy; M A Krieg; P Jaeger; D O Slosman
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  23 in total

1.  Quantitative heel ultrasound: comments on the ESOPO study report by Maggi et al.

Authors:  W Pluskiewicz
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Quantitative heel ultrasound in a population-based study in Italy and its relationship with fracture history: the ESOPO study.

Authors:  S Maggi; M Noale; S Giannini; S Adami; D Defeo; G Isaia; L Sinigaglia; P Filipponi; G Crepaldi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-02       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  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

4.  Contralateral differences in quantitative ultrasound of the heel: the importance of side in clinical practice.

Authors:  Faidon Magkos; Yannis Manios; Eirini Babaroutsi; Labros S Sidossis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Quantitative ultrasound calcaneus measurements: normative data for the Greek population.

Authors:  Faidon Magkos; Yannis Manios; Eirini Babaroutsi; Labros S Sidossis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-07-06       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Combining bone resorption markers and heel quantitative ultrasound to discriminate between fracture cases and controls.

Authors:  D Nanchen; J Cornuz; C Ruffieux; W Riesen; P Burckhardt; M A Krieg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Quantitative ultrasound measurements and vitamin D status in the assessment of hip fracture risk in a nationally representative population sample.

Authors:  M Kauppi; O Impivaara; J Mäki; M Heliövaara; A Jula
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Undiagnosed vertebral fractures influence quality of life in postmenopausal women with reduced ultrasound parameters.

Authors:  Ranuccio Nuti; Carla Caffarelli; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Luigi Gennari; Stefano Gonnelli
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Risk factors for hip fracture in women with high BMD: EPIDOS study.

Authors:  J A Robbins; A M Schott; P Garnero; P D Delmas; D Hans; P J Meunier
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-06-08       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Combining clinical factors and quantitative ultrasound improves the detection of women both at low and high risk for hip fracture.

Authors:  C Durosier; D Hans; M A Krieg; C Ruffieux; J Cornuz; P J Meunier; A M Schott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-07-11       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.