Literature DB >> 16028108

Performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in postmenopausal women aged 45-64 years.

Margaret L Gourlay1, William C Miller, Florent Richy, Joanne M Garrett, Laura C Hanson, Jean-Yves Reginster.   

Abstract

Osteoporosis risk factor assessment is of uncertain utility in women under 65 years of age. Previous comparative studies of osteoporosis risk assessment tools were not stratified by age. We compared the discriminatory ability of three previously validated osteoporosis risk assessment tools in a referral population of postmenopausal women aged 45-64 years (n=2539) and aged 65-96 years (n=1496) seen at a university-based outpatient osteoporosis center in Belgium. Risk scores for the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation were calculated for each patient. The reference standard was osteoporosis at the femoral neck, defined as a T-score < or =-2.5 based on bone mineral density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis was present in 139 of 2539 (5.5%) women aged 45-64 years and 241 of 1496 (16.1%) women aged 65 years or older. The tools had similar overall discriminatory ability to identify women with osteoporosis [area under the ROC curve 0.750-0.768, P=0.23 for women aged 45-64 years; area under the ROC curve 0.745-0.762, P=0.06 for women aged 65 years or older (P>0.05 indicates no difference among tools)]. The likelihood ratios for the high-risk score categories ranged from 3.60 to 6.73 for the younger women and 3.45 to 6.99 for the older women when different score thresholds were set to maximize the performance of each tool in each age group. We conclude that the diagnostic accuracy of three osteoporosis risk assessment tools was similar in postmenopausal women aged 45-64 years and women aged 65 years or older. Use of structured risk assessment tools to identify women at high risk of osteoporosis in the early postmenopausal period warrants further study. Of the three tools evaluated, the OST is the simplest and has the best potential for use in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 16028108     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1775-2

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


  18 in total

1.  Identification of at-risk women for osteoporosis screening.

Authors:  L Weinstein; B Ullery
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation.

Authors:  Stephanie A Mulherin; William C Miller
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

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

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

4.  Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in a sample of white women from Belgium.

Authors:  W Ben Sedrine; J P Devogelaer; J M Kaufman; S Goemaere; G Depresseux; B Zegels; R Deroisy; J Y Reginster
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density.

Authors:  E Lydick; K Cook; J Turpin; M Melton; R Stine; C Byrnes
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.229

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

7.  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

8.  Interest of a prescreening questionnaire to reduce the cost of bone densitometry.

Authors:  W Ben Sedrine; P Broers; J P Devogelaer; G Depresseux; J M Kaufman; S Goemaere; J Y Reginster
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older U.S. women from NHANES III.

Authors:  A C Looker; C C Johnston; H W Wahner; W L Dunn; M S Calvo; T B Harris; S P Heyse; R L Lindsay
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Development and assessment of the Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry.

Authors:  W B Sedrine; T Chevallier; B Zegels; A Kvasz; M C Micheletti; B Gelas; J Y Reginster
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.260

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Risk factors for low bone mass in healthy 40-60 year old women: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  E J Waugh; M-A Lam; G A Hawker; J McGowan; A Papaioannou; A M Cheung; A B Hodsman; W D Leslie; K Siminoski; S A Jamal
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-06-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Elevated bone mass: a weighty matter?

Authors:  William D Leslie
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Targeted assessment of fracture risk in women at midlife.

Authors:  S R Davis; A Tan; R J Bell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  A clinical decision rule to enhance targeted bone mineral density testing in healthy mid-life women.

Authors:  G Hawker; A Mendel; M A Lam; P S Akhavan; J Cancino-Romero; E Waugh; S Jamal; S Mian; S Jaglal
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-12-10       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women 50 to 64 years old: comparison of US Preventive Services Task Force strategy and two traditional strategies in the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  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

Review 9.  Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.096

10.  Weight and body mass index predict bone mineral density and fractures in women aged 40 to 59 years.

Authors:  S Morin; J F Tsang; W D Leslie
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.