Literature DB >> 14514993

Evaluation of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound in a primary care setting as a screening tool for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Adolfo Díez-Pérez1, Fernando Marín, Joan Vila, Mercedes Abizanda, Artur Cervera, Cristina Carbonell, Rosa Ma Alcolea, Adoración Cama, Teresa Rama, Elena Galindo, Carmen Olmos.   

Abstract

Screening of osteoporosis by quantitative ultrasound (QUS) has become widely available in Europe, but no clear strategies for its clinical use have been established. The aim of this study was to validate the use of QUS in a cross-sectional study carried out in three primary care centers. Measurements of calcaneal QUS and bone mineral density (BMD) at proximal femur were obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporosis was diagnosed by DXA T-score <or= -2.5 at the femoral neck. Sensitivity, specificity, kappa index, and receives operator characteristics (ROC) curve QUS values were calculated with respect to the standard reference. Both positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) were used to calculate the optimum cut-off levels. Two hundred and sixty-seven women aged 65 or older were included. Fifty-five percent had osteoporotic femoral neck BMD values (T-score <or= -2.5). The same threshold for QUS yielded a lower prevalence of osteoporosis (10%). Women with BMD diagnosis of osteoporosis were older and showed lower age-adjusted values for all QUS parameters (p < 0.001). Area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.662-0.678 for the different QUS parameters; correlation and concordance of all parameters with femoral neck BMD were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Cut-off values calculated from the AUC yielded 61.1% sensitivity and 65.3% specificity for the best QUS parameter (i.e., Estimated Heel T-score <or= -1.55). Estimated Heel T-score values of +0.05 or above ruled out osteoporosis (LR 0.18), whereas those -2.50 or below supported the diagnosis (LR 5.98). The application of these cutoff points allowed classification of 22.1% of cases. In conclusion, in postmenopausal women, QUS screening conclusively confirms or rules out osteoporosis in approximately one-fifth of cases, thereby avoiding the need for a DXA measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14514993     DOI: 10.1385/jcd:6:3:237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.963


  12 in total

1.  Heel Ultrasound Scan in Detecting Osteoporosis in Low Trauma Fracture Patients.

Authors:  Faiz R Hashmi; Khaled O Elfandi
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2016-06-27

2.  Assessment of lumbar vertebrae morphology by magnetic resonance imaging in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Ozgür Tosun; Fatma Fidan; Filiz Erdil; Aliye Tosun; Mustafa Karaoğlanoğlu; Ozge Ardıçoğlu
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 2.199

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

Review 4.  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 5.  Management of co-morbidities and general medical conditions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Molly D Magnano; Mark C Genovese
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.592

6.  Prediction of absolute risk of non-spinal fractures using clinical risk factors and heel quantitative ultrasound.

Authors:  A Díez-Pérez; J González-Macías; F Marín; M Abizanda; R Alvarez; A Gimeno; E Pegenaute; J Vila
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  The relationship between clustering health-promoting components of lifestyle and bone status among middle-aged women in a general population.

Authors:  Satoshi Tsuboi; Takehito Hayakawa; Hideyuki Kanda; Tetsuhito Fukushima
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 3.674

Review 8.  Is calcaneal quantitative ultrasound useful as a prescreen stratification tool for osteoporosis?

Authors:  K Thomsen; D B Jepsen; L Matzen; A P Hermann; T Masud; J Ryg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Cost-effectiveness of quantitative ultrasound as a technique for screening of osteoporotic fracture risk: report on a health technology assessment conducted in 2001.

Authors:  Pamela Aidelsburger; Franz Hessel; Jürgen Wasem
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2004-03-29

10.  The ability of calcaneal and multisite quantitative ultrasound variables in the identification of osteoporosis in women and men.

Authors:  Aydan Oral; Sina Esmaeilzadeh; Ayşe Yalıman; Dilşad Sindel; Pınar Kürsüz Köseoğlu; Tuğba Aydın
Journal:  Turk J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-07-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.