Literature DB >> 15986263

Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry.

B Rud1, J E B Jensen, L Mosekilde, S P Nielsen, J Hilden, B Abrahamsen.   

Abstract

Several methods to select postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) have been proposed. We decided to compare the performance of three clinical decision rules (SCORE, ORAI, OST) with the usual case-finding strategy based on the presence of a major risk factor for future fracture (CFMRF). The study subjects were 2009 healthy, white, peri- or early postmenopausal women participating in the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study (DOPS). DXA results expressed as T-scores and scores on SCORE, ORAI, OST and CFMRF were extracted from the DOPS database. First, we evaluated the screening tools as originally described by the developers. The resulting sensitivities and specificities ranged from 18% to 92% and from 66% to 85%, respectively. Only OST achieved a high sensitivity (92%) with respect to femoral neck T-score < or = -2.5; however, the sensitivity with respect to lumbar spine T-score < or = -2.5 was only 51%. Next, the performance of the screening tools was evaluated against T-score < or = -2.0 (and T-score < or = -2.5) in at least one of the regions: femoral neck, total hip or lumbar spine. Using ROC curve analysis, we determined cut-offs yielding sensitivities as close as possible to 90%. The CFMRF and the ORAI tool were too coarse to yield 90% sensitivity. The performances of OST and SCORE were equal from a clinical perspective in that the sensitivities and the specificities varied from 89% to 94% and from 23% to 28%, respectively. The performance of CFMRF was no better than could be expected by chance, yielding a sensitivity of 19% and a specificity of 85%. Applying SCORE or OST 75% of the women would have to be referred for densitometry to identify 90% of the women with T-score < or = -2.0 (or T-score < or = -2.5) in at least one region. In conclusion, our results question the utility of all the evaluated tools for screening peri- and early postmenopausal women for low BMD. However, if a decision on referral has to be made, it may be based on the simple OST rule, which performed as well as or better than any of the other tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15986263     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1748-5

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


  44 in total

Review 1.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards.

Authors:  A Laupacis; N Sekar; I G Stiell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-02-12       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease.

Authors:  J A Kanis; P Delmas; P Burckhardt; C Cooper; D Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Spine and femur densitometry at the menopause: are both sites necessary in the assessment of the risk of osteoporosis?

Authors:  J M Pouilles; F Tremollieres; C Ribot
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  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

5.  An assessment of the new "SCORE" index as a predictor of osteoporosis in women.

Authors:  A S Russell; R T Morrison
Journal:  Scand J Rheumatol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  Hormonal replacement therapy reduces forearm fracture incidence in recent postmenopausal women - results of the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study.

Authors:  L Mosekilde; H Beck-Nielsen; O H Sørensen; S P Nielsen; P Charles; P Vestergaard; A P Hermann; J Gram; T B Hansen; B Abrahamsen; E N Ebbesen; L Stilgren; L B Jensen; C Brot; B Hansen; C L Tofteng; P Eiken; N Kolthoff
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Clinical risk factors as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis in general practice.

Authors:  R G Versluis; S E Papapoulos; G H de Bock; A H Zwinderman; H Petri; C M van de Ven; M P Springer
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators.

Authors:  B Ettinger; D M Black; B H Mitlak; R K Knickerbocker; T Nickelsen; H K Genant; C Christiansen; P D Delmas; J R Zanchetta; J Stakkestad; C C Glüer; K Krueger; F J Cohen; S Eckert; K E Ensrud; L V Avioli; P Lips; S R Cummings
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

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

10.  The Canadian SCORE questionnaire: optimizing the use of technology for low bone density assessment. Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimate.

Authors:  W J Ungar; R Josse; S Lee; N Ryan; R Adachi; D Hanley; J Brown; M C Breton
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  11 in total

1.  Validation of the Cummings' risk score; how well does it identify women with high risk of hip fracture: the Tromsø Study.

Authors:  Luai A Ahmed; Henrik Schirmer; Vinjar Fønnebø; Ragnar M Joakimsen; Gro K Berntsen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 8.082

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.  Development and validation of a tool for identifying women with low bone mineral density and low-impact fractures: the São Paulo Osteoporosis Risk Index (SAPORI).

Authors:  M M Pinheiro; E T Reis Neto; F S Machado; F Omura; J Szejnfeld; V L Szejnfeld
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Performance of Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asian (OSTA) for Primary Osteoporosis in Post-menopausal Malay Women.

Authors:  Daj Muslim; Ef Mohd; Ay Sallehudin; Tms Tengku Muzaffar; Am Ezane
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2012-03

7.  Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older.

Authors:  M L Gourlay; J M Powers; L-Y Lui; K E Ensrud
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-01-25       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Association between circulating osteoprogenitor cell numbers and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  M Pirro; C Leli; G Fabbriciani; M R Manfredelli; L Callarelli; F Bagaglia; A M Scarponi; E Mannarino
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-05-30       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Mikkeli Osteoporosis Index Identifies Fracture Risk Factors and Osteoporosis and Intervention Thresholds Parallel with FRAX.

Authors:  Ville Juhana Waris; Joonas P Sirola; Vesa V Kiviniemi; Marjo T Tuppurainen; V Pekka Waris
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2011-05-04

10.  Evaluation of Clinical Decision Rules for Bone Mineral Density Testing among White Women.

Authors:  Michael E Anders; Lori Turner; Jeanne Freeman
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2013-01-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.