Literature DB >> 16523248

Utility of screening tools for the prediction of low bone mass in African American men.

B Sinnott1, S Kukreja, E Barengolts.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis remains under-diagnosed, particularly in African American men, despite the availability of reliable diagnostic tests. In women, several screening tools, including heel ultrasound and clinical assessment tools, reliably predict low bone mass, however the usefulness of these screening tools in African American men is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of screening tools, namely heel ultrasound, the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST), weight-based criterion (WBC) and body mass index (BMI), in screening for low bone mass in African American men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: African American men 35 years of age and older were invited to participate. The OST risk index is a score based on age and weight [(weight in kilograms--age in years)x0.2]. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the heel was measured by heel ultrasound, and BMD of both the lumbar spine and hip were determined by dual energy X-ray absorptometry (DXA). One hundred and twenty-eight men fulfilled the inclusion criteria for our study.
RESULTS: The population prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis were 39% and 7%, respectively. Using a heel ultrasound T-score cut-off value of -1 or less, we predicted low bone mass (T-score of -2 or less at the hip) with a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 71% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80. Using an OST cut-off value of 4, we predicted low bone mass with a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 57% and an AUC of 0.83. The OST risk index ranged from 18.1 to -6.1, based on which we categorized risk as: low, 5 or greater; moderate, 0-4; high, -1 or less. Of the men with a high-risk OST score, 87% had either osteopenia or osteoporosis based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Using the WBC alone with a cut-off value of 85 kg, we predicted low bone mass with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 50% and an AUC of 0.70. A BMI cut-off value of 30 or greater yielded a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 43% and an AUC of 0.70 for the diagnosis of low bone mass. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis were unexpectedly high in outpatient African American male veterans, who are considered to be at low risk for low bone mass. Heel ultrasound was able to predict low bone mass with sufficiently high sensitivity and specificity for use as a screening tool. Surprisingly, WBC and BMI proved ineffective in predicting low bone mass with adequate sensitivity and specificity. The OST, a clinical formula based on weight and age, appeared to be an easy and reliable screening tool for identifying men at high risk for low bone mass.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16523248     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-0034-5

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


  46 in total

Review 1.  Epidemiology of osteoporosis and fracture in men.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; C De Laet; D Mellstrom
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 2.  Osteoporosis in men--consensus is premature.

Authors:  E Seeman; G Bianchi; S Adami; J Kanis; S Khosla; E Orwoll
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Ultrasound measurements at the calcaneus in men: differences between healthy and fractured persons and the influence of age and anthropometric features on ultrasound parameters.

Authors:  W Pluskiewicz; B Drozdzowska
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study.

Authors:  J R Center; T V Nguyen; D Schneider; P N Sambrook; J A Eisman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-03-13       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Relation between body size and bone mineral density in elderly men and women.

Authors:  S L Edelstein; E Barrett-Connor
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Treatment and survival among elderly Americans with hip fractures: a population-based study.

Authors:  G L Lu-Yao; J A Baron; J A Barrett; E S Fisher
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 9.308

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.  Quantitative ultrasound of bone in male osteoporosis.

Authors:  D Mulleman; I Legroux-Gerot; B Duquesnoy; X Marchandise; B Delcambre; B Cortet
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Usefulness of bone quantitative ultrasound in management of osteoporosis in men.

Authors:  A Montagnani; S Gonnelli; C Cepollaro; M Mangeri; R Monaco; L Gennari; C Gennari
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.963

Review 10.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis in men, premenopausal women, and children.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Effects of vitamin D insufficiency on bone mineral density in African American men.

Authors:  N Akhter; B Sinnott; K Mahmood; S Rao; S Kukreja; E Barengolts
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Men: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Strategies for Selecting Men for BMD Testing.

Authors:  Susan J Diem; Katherine W Peters; Margaret L Gourlay; John T Schousboe; Brent C Taylor; Eric S Orwoll; Jane A Cauley; Lisa Langsetmo; Carolyn J Crandall; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Sensitivity of osteoporosis screening guidelines for eventual hip fracture in older male veterans.

Authors:  Juliessa M Pavon; Linda L Sanders; Richard Sloane; Cathleen Colón-Emeric
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2014-05-07

5.  Selecting men for bone densitometry: performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in Portuguese men.

Authors:  P Machado; M Coutinho; J A P da Silva
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Prevalence of low bone mineral density in a low-income inner-city population.

Authors:  Diala El-Maouche; Xiaoqiang Xu; Joseph Cofrancesco; Adrian S Dobs; Todd T Brown
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Bone Turnover Status: Classification Model and Clinical Implications.

Authors:  Alexander Fisher; Leon Fisher; Wichat Srikusalanukul; Paul N Smith
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 8.  Performance of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) in Predicting Osteoporosis-A Review.

Authors:  Shaanthana Subramaniam; Soelaiman Ima-Nirwana; Kok-Yong Chin
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Development and Validation of Osteoporosis Risk-Assessment Model for Korean Men.

Authors:  Sun Min Oh; Bo Mi Song; Byung Ho Nam; Yumie Rhee; Seong Hwan Moon; Deog Young Kim; Dae Ryong Kang; Hyeon Chang Kim
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.759

10.  A New Predictive Index for Osteoporosis in Men under 70 Years of Age: An Index to Identify Male Candidates for Osteoporosis Screening by Bone Mineral Density.

Authors:  Lee Oh Kim; Hyeon-Ju Kim; Mi Hee Kong
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2014-03-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.