B Rud1, J Hilden, L Hyldstrup, A Hróbjartsson. 1. Osteoporosis Unit 545, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegaard Allé 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark. mail@borud.dk
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple test that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density. We performed a systematic review to assess its performance in postmenopausal women. We included 36 studies. OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5. Methodological study quality was generally low. INTRODUCTION: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple clinical decision rule based on age and weight that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density (BMD). Our aim was to systematically assess the performance of OST in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists and conference proceedings for studies evaluating OST using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference test to measure BMD. We evaluated methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. Our main outcome was the likelihood ratio of a negative OST result (LR-). RESULTS: OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5 in whites, summary LR- (sLR-) 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.21) and between-study heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 7%). The corresponding performance in Asians was similar, sLR- 0.19 (0.14-0.28), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 64%). OST performed poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5 in whites and Asians, sLR- 0.43 (0.31-0.59) and 0.32 (0.28-0.38), respectively. The performance in ruling-out T-score <or= -2.0 in whites was poor regardless of region (sLR- >or=0.28). Methodological study quality was generally low. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical usefulness of OST is uncertain. OST could be useful for ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but confirmatory high-quality studies are needed.
UNLABELLED: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple test that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density. We performed a systematic review to assess its performance in postmenopausal women. We included 36 studies. OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5. Methodological study quality was generally low. INTRODUCTION: The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple clinical decision rule based on age and weight that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density (BMD). Our aim was to systematically assess the performance of OST in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists and conference proceedings for studies evaluating OST using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference test to measure BMD. We evaluated methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. Our main outcome was the likelihood ratio of a negative OST result (LR-). RESULTS: OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5 in whites, summary LR- (sLR-) 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.21) and between-study heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 7%). The corresponding performance in Asians was similar, sLR- 0.19 (0.14-0.28), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 64%). OST performed poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5 in whites and Asians, sLR- 0.43 (0.31-0.59) and 0.32 (0.28-0.38), respectively. The performance in ruling-out T-score <or= -2.0 in whites was poor regardless of region (sLR- >or=0.28). Methodological study quality was generally low. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical usefulness of OST is uncertain. OST could be useful for ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but confirmatory high-quality studies are needed.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
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
Authors: Charles H Chesnut; Arne Skag; Claus Christiansen; Robert Recker; Jacob A Stakkestad; Arne Hoiseth; Dieter Felsenberg; Hermann Huss; Jennifer Gilbride; Ralph C Schimmer; Pierre D Delmas Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-03-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Marie E Weswood; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick N M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: J T Schousboe; M Gourlay; H A Fink; B C Taylor; E S Orwoll; E Barrett-Connor; L J Melton; S R Cummings; K E Ensrud Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 4.507
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