Literature DB >> 14520511

A comparison of different screening strategies to identify elderly women at high risk of hip fracture: results from the EPIDOS prospective study.

P Dargent-Molina1, S Piault, G Bréart.   

Abstract

Decision to treat with an anti-osteoporotic drug should be based on individual fracture risk evaluation. We compared the discriminant value of four different screening strategies to identify elderly women with a risk of hip fracture greater than 20 per 1000 woman-years: (1) BMD screening alone, (2) quantitative ultrasound (QUS) screening alone, (3) QUS triage followed by BMD assessment for women with medium-low QUS parameters, and (4) selective BMD screening based on weight followed by clinical evaluation for women with medium-low BMD. The study population included 5910 women aged 75 years or older who participated to the EPIDOS (Epidemiologie de l'Ostéoporose) prospective study. Over an average of 3.7 (+/-0.8) years of follow-up, 231 women suffered a hip fracture, which corresponds to an average risk of 10.6 per 1000 woman-years. All strategies allow us to clearly distinguish a group at high risk of hip fracture (i.e. >20 per 1000 woman-years) from a group at low risk (i.e. below the average risk in the cohort). QUS screening alone has a very low sensitivity (15%). The strategy using QUS as a method of triage and that combining selective BMD and clinical assessment have a sensitivity equivalent to systematic BMD screening (around 35%), with less than 50% BMD examinations. The high-risk women identified by these two strategies are not the same. A simple algorithm combining QUS, BMD, and clinical risk assessment allows an increased number of high-risk women to be identified (21%), and thus improves the sensitivity (53%). With this combined strategy, women in the high-risk group have one chance in ten of having a hip fracture over the next 4 years, whereas women in the low risk group have only one chance in 40.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14520511     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1506-0

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


  26 in total

1.  Effect and offset of effect of treatments for hip fracture on health outcomes.

Authors:  B Jonsson; J Kanis; A Dawson; A Oden; O Johnell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  How to use ultrasound for risk assessment: a need for defining strategies.

Authors:  C C Glüer; D Hans
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Prevalence of subclinical vitamin D deficiency in different European countries.

Authors:  S H Scharla
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Is there a future for non-menopausal screening strategies for osteoporosis prevention?

Authors:  D J Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Added value of bone mineral density in hip fracture risk scores.

Authors:  H Burger; C E de Laet; A E Weel; A Hofman; H A Pols
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  In elderly women weight is the best predictor of a very low bone mineral density: evidence from the EPIDOS study.

Authors:  P Dargent-Molina; F Poitiers; G Bréart
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  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

Review 8.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Heel ultrasonography in monitoring alendronate therapy: a four-year longitudinal study.

Authors:  S Gonnelli; C Cepollaro; A Montagnani; S Martini; L Gennari; M Mangeri; C Gennari
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  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
View more
  6 in total

1.  Economic comparison of diagnostic approaches for evaluating osteoporosis in older women.

Authors:  Dale F Kraemer; Heidi D Nelson; Douglas C Bauer; Mark Helfand
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-12       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  An osteoporosis screening tool for Chinese men.

Authors:  H S Lynn; E M C Lau; S Y S Wong; A W L Hong
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-11-05       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  The 'Ossebo' intervention for the prevention of injurious falls in elderly women: background and design.

Authors:  Patricia Dargent-Molina; Fabienne El Khoury; Bernard Cassou
Journal:  Glob Health Promot       Date:  2013-06

Review 4.  The effect of the microscopic and nanoscale structure on bone fragility.

Authors:  M E Ruppel; L M Miller; D B Burr
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  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

6.  Prescreening for Osteoporosis With Quantitative Ultrasound in Postmenopausal White Women.

Authors:  Bernhard Steiner; Hans Peter Dimai; Hubert Steiner; Sabrina Cirar; Astrid Fahrleitner-Pammer
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 2.153

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.