Literature DB >> 12897978

Comparison of a simple clinical risk index and quantitative bone ultrasound for identifying women at increased risk of osteoporosis.

Annie W C Kung1, Andrew Y Y Ho, Wafa Ben Sedrine, Jean-Yves Reginster, Philip D Ross.   

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a growing problem in Asia, and early identification of at risk subjects for preventive measures is likely the most cost-effective method for managing this disease in developing countries. Patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) have a high risk of future fracture. However, access to BMD measurements is limited in many areas of Asia, and inexpensive methods of targeting high-risk patients for BMD measurements would be valuable. We compared two methods, a simple clinical risk assessment tool, the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), and quantitative bone ultrasound (QUS) in identifying subjects with low BMD by DXA in 722 southern Chinese postmenopausal women recruited from the community in Hong Kong. Using the published cutoff value of -1 (versus 0 or higher) for OSTA to identify subjects with femoral neck BMD T-score < or =-2.5, basing on our local population peak young mean value, the sensitivity and specificity was 88% and 54% respectively. The optimal cutoff T-score of -2.35 for QUS yielded sensitivity and specificity values of 81% and 65%, respectively. The AUC for QUS was 0.78, which was not significantly different from that of 0.80 for OSTA. Both OSTA and QUS correlated significantly with BMD at the femoral neck (0.62 and 0.36, respectively, P both <0.001). When these cut-off values were used to identify subjects with either lumbar spine or femoral neck BMD T-score < or =-2.5, the sensitivity and specificity was 79% and 60%, respectively, for OSTA, and 69% and 70%, respectively, for QUS. Combining QUS with OSTA improved the sensitivity to 91%, but the specificity was reduced to 44%. We conclude that the simple clinical risk assessment tool OSTA is a free and effective method for identifying subjects at increased risk of osteoporosis, and its use could facilitate the appropriate and more cost-effective use of bone densitometry in developing countries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12897978     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1428-x

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Is quantitative ultrasound dependent on bone structure? A reflection.

Authors:  C F Njeh; T Fuerst; E Diessel; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art.

Authors:  H K Genant; K Engelke; T Fuerst; C C Glüer; S Grampp; S T Harris; M Jergas; T Lang; Y Lu; S Majumdar; A Mathur; M Takada
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Influence of anthropometric parameters on ultrasound measurements of Os calcis.

Authors:  D Hans; A M Schott; M E Arlot; E Sornay; P D Delmas; P J Meunier
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  The epidemiology of quantitative ultrasound: a review of the relationships with bone mass, osteoporosis and fracture risk.

Authors:  E W Gregg; A M Kriska; L M Salamone; M M Roberts; S J Anderson; R E Ferrell; L H Kuller; J A Cauley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser       Date:  1994

6.  Quantitative ultrasound and symptomatic vertebral fracture risk in Chinese women.

Authors:  A W Kung; K D Luk; L W Chu; G W Tang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Prevention of early postmenopausal bone loss by strontium ranelate: the randomized, two-year, double-masked, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled PREVOS trial.

Authors:  J Y Reginster; R Deroisy; M Dougados; I Jupsin; J Colette; C Roux
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women. A prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  D C Bauer; C C Glüer; J A Cauley; T M Vogt; K E Ensrud; H K Genant; D M Black
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-03-24

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

Authors:  Piet Geusens; 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
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.616

10.  Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection.

Authors:  C Cooper; G Campion; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  25 in total

1.  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 2.  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

Review 3.  The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy.

Authors:  B Rud; J Hilden; L Hyldstrup; A Hróbjartsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  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

5.  Clinical risk indices, prediction of osteoporosis, and prevention of fractures: diagnostic consequences and costs.

Authors:  Chatlert Pongchaiyakul; Nguyen D Nguyen; John A Eisman; Tuan V Nguyen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-17       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  A risk assessment tool (OsteoRisk) for identifying Latin American women with osteoporosis.

Authors:  Shuvayu S Sen; Vincent P Rives; Osvaldo D Messina; Jorge Morales-Torres; Gregorio Riera; Juan M Angulo-Solimano; João F M Neto; Alberto Frisoli; Ricardo C Sáenz; Olga Geling; Philip D Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  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

8.  Diagnostic value of osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA) and quantitative bone ultrasound (QUS) in detecting high-risk populations for osteoporosis among elderly Chinese men.

Authors:  Xiao-Yun Zha; Yu Hu; Xiao-Na Pang; Gui-Lin Chang; Li Li
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2014-04-20       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  An assessment of the use of quantitative ultrasound and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians in determining the risk of nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal Chinese women.

Authors:  Bei Tao; Jian-min Liu; Xiao-ying Li; Ji-guang Wang; Wei-qing Wang; Guang Ning
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  The relationship of an Asian-specific screening tool for osteoporosis to vertebral deformity and osteoporosis.

Authors:  Sunee Saetung; Boonsong Ongphiphadhanakul; Rajata Rajatanavin
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.626

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.