Literature DB >> 15889313

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

Dale F Kraemer1, Heidi D Nelson, Douglas C Bauer, Mark Helfand.   

Abstract

Of the technologies available, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the hip or femoral neck (DXA-FN) is the best predictor of hip fractures. Diagnostic approaches utilizing measures of peripheral sites with office-based technology, such as calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS), may reduce costs although clinical and economic outcomes have not been evaluated. The objective was to compare three approaches for diagnosing osteoporosis in older women. The design was a decision-analytic model using diagnostic measures and clinical and economic outcomes from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, a prospective cohort of older white women that measured BMD and QUS and assessed fracture outcomes. The setting and patients were a hypothetical cohort of older white women presenting for diagnosis of osteoporosis. For the diagnostic and treatment alternatives, three diagnostic approaches-DXA-FN alone, QUS alone and a sequential approach (first QUS, then DXA-FN for those with low values for QUS)-were compared to no diagnosis. The outcome measures were the number of women identified for treatment, number of hip fractures prevented following diagnosis and subsequent treatment, number of women needed to treat to prevent one hip fracture and total direct medical costs. The sequential approach identified fewer women to treat, prevented more hip fractures and incurred lower total costs than using DXA alone. Diagnosis with QUS alone identified more women to treat and incurred higher total costs than DXA alone under most conditions. Compared to other approaches for diagnosing osteoporosis, sequential use of QUS followed by DXA resulted in fewer women treated and lower total costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15889313     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-1922-4

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


  25 in total

1.  Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Hand ultrasound for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  C L Benitez; D L Schneider; E Barrett-Connor; D J Sartoris
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  How many women have osteoporosis now?

Authors:  L J Melton
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 4.  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

5.  Healthcare use among U.S. women aged 45 and older: total costs and costs for selected postmenopausal health risks.

Authors:  T J Hoerger; K E Downs; M C Lakshmanan; R C Lindrooth; L Plouffe; B Wendling; S L West; R L Ohsfeldt
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  1999-10

6.  Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Mark Helfand; Steven H Woolf; Janet D Allan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 7.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

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

8.  Axial bone mass in older women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  E S Orwoll; D C Bauer; T M Vogt; K M Fox
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Progressive loss of bone in the femoral neck in elderly people: longitudinal findings from the Dubbo osteoporosis epidemiology study.

Authors:  G Jones; T Nguyen; P Sambrook; P J Kelly; J A Eisman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-17

10.  Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis.

Authors:  T Masud; S Langley; P Wiltshire; D V Doyle; T D Spector
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-17
View more
  5 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

2.  Combined Measures of Dynamic Bone Quality and Postural Balance--A Fracture Risk Assessment Approach in Osteoporosis.

Authors:  Amit Bhattacharya; Nelson B Watts; Alok Dwivedi; Rakesh Shukla; Ashutosh Mani; Dima Diab
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 2.617

3.  Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds: the United States perspective.

Authors:  A N A Tosteson; L J Melton; B Dawson-Hughes; S Baim; M J Favus; S Khosla; R L Lindsay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  An evaluation of osteoporosis screening tools for the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study.

Authors:  H S Lynn; J Woo; P C Leung; E L Barrett-Connor; M C Nevitt; J A Cauley; R A Adler; E S Orwoll
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The accuracy of panoramic radiography as a screening of bone mineral density in women: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mateus Azevedo Kinalski; Noeli Boscato; Melissa Feres Damian
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.419

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.