Literature DB >> 17112425

Prescreening tools to determine who needs DXA.

Elliott N Schwartz1, Dee M Steinberg.   

Abstract

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to help physicians practice better. A number of CDRs to assist in identifying women with low bone mass have been developed since the mid 1990s, including SCORE, OST (OSTA), OSIRIS, SOFSURF, NOF, ABONE, pBW, ORAI, and weight-only-EPIDOS (which we have termed WO-E). This review discusses these CDRs in terms of development and validation cohorts and their sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivities of the available CDRs exceed 80% and specificities are about 50%. After much analysis, it appears that most experts prefer OST for its simplicity and SCORE for its flexibility, but there is no consensus on what risk factors to use in the CDRs and what regions of interest (spine, total hip, femoral neck, or a combination) to test with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Because of the lack of consensus, there are barriers to the clinical application of these CDRs. Agreement on a single CDR for worldwide use is required to optimally fulfill the objective of identifying low bone mass.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17112425     DOI: 10.1007/s11914-996-0023-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep        ISSN: 1544-1873            Impact factor:   5.096


  23 in total

Review 1.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement.

Authors:  M D Cabana; C S Rand; N R Powe; A W Wu; M H Wilson; P A Abboud; H R Rubin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  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

Review 3.  Assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Frederik Borgstrom; Chris De Laet; Helena Johansson; Olof Johnell; Bengt Jonsson; Anders Oden; Niklas Zethraeus; Bruce Pfleger; Nikolai Khaltaev
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 4.507

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

Review 5.  Can we detect women with low bone mass using clinical risk factors?

Authors:  C Ribot; F Tremollieres; J M Pouilles
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1995-02-27       Impact factor: 4.965

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.  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.  Validation of OSIRIS, a prescreening tool for the identification of women with an increased risk of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J Y Reginster; W Ben Sedrine; P Viethel; M C Micheletti; T Chevallier; M Audran
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.260

9.  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

10.  Efficient patient identification strategies for women with osteoporosis.

Authors:  T A Abbott; L Mucha; D Manfredonia; E N Schwartz; M L Berger
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  8 in total

1.  Improving the sensitivity of the Dutch guidelines for case finding in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Noortje A Verdijk; Geraline Leusink; Ronald Erdtsieck; Victor J M Pop
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Comparison between various fracture risk assessment tools.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Characterisation of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis in French primary healthcare.

Authors:  Francis Blotman; Bernard Cortet; Pascal Hilliquin; Bernard Avouac; François-André Allaert; Denis Pouchain; Anne-Françoise Gaudin; François-Emery Cotté; Abdelkader El Hasnaoui
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.923

6.  An economic evaluation: Simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures.

Authors:  Léon Nshimyumukiza; Audrey Durand; Mathieu Gagnon; Xavier Douville; Suzanne Morin; Carmen Lindsay; Julie Duplantie; Christian Gagné; Sonia Jean; Yves Giguère; Sylvie Dodin; François Rousseau; Daniel Reinharz
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Osteoporosis: are healthcare professionals missing an opportunity.

Authors:  Yusra Habib Khan; Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi; Azmi Sarriff; Amer Hayat Khan
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-09-14

8.  Osteoporosis risk prediction for bone mineral density assessment of postmenopausal women using machine learning.

Authors:  Tae Keun Yoo; Sung Kean Kim; Deok Won Kim; Joon Yul Choi; Wan Hyung Lee; Ein Oh; Eun-Cheol Park
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.759

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.