UNLABELLED: No large-scale evaluations of osteoporosis screening tools have been done in men. OST and MOST were examined among 4658 US Caucasian and 1914 Hong Kong Chinese men. Both tools have high negative predictive values, accurately screening out men with low risk, and saving a third of DXA tests. INTRODUCTION: Prior investigations have studied the performance of osteoporosis screening tools in women, but no large-scale evaluations have been done in men. METHODS: This study examines the performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST), the Male Osteoporosis Screening Tool (MOST), quantitative ultrasound index (QUI), and body weight as screening tools. Osteoporosis was defined by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measured bone mineral density (BMD) T-score < or =-2.5. Four thousand six hundred and fifty-eight US Caucasian and 1914 Hong Kong Chinese men, aged > or =65 years and community-dwelling, were included in the analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the area under the ROC curve (AUC) between different screening tools. RESULTS: MOST had a significantly larger AUC (> or =0.8) than OST, QUI, and body weight in detecting osteoporosis. Using the second tertile as cutoff, OST and MOST yielded sensitivities of around 90% and negative predictive values (NPVs) of >97%, accurately screening out Caucasian and Chinese men with low risk of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: OST and MOST can effectively rule out osteoporosis for both Caucasian and Chinese men, and compared to referring men 65 years and older for BMD DXA testing, they save a third of DXA resources.
UNLABELLED: No large-scale evaluations of osteoporosis screening tools have been done in men. OST and MOST were examined among 4658 US Caucasian and 1914 Hong Kong Chinese men. Both tools have high negative predictive values, accurately screening out men with low risk, and saving a third of DXA tests. INTRODUCTION: Prior investigations have studied the performance of osteoporosis screening tools in women, but no large-scale evaluations have been done in men. METHODS: This study examines the performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST), the Male Osteoporosis Screening Tool (MOST), quantitative ultrasound index (QUI), and body weight as screening tools. Osteoporosis was defined by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measured bone mineral density (BMD) T-score < or =-2.5. Four thousand six hundred and fifty-eight US Caucasian and 1914 Hong Kong Chinese men, aged > or =65 years and community-dwelling, were included in the analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the area under the ROC curve (AUC) between different screening tools. RESULTS: MOST had a significantly larger AUC (> or =0.8) than OST, QUI, and body weight in detecting osteoporosis. Using the second tertile as cutoff, OST and MOST yielded sensitivities of around 90% and negative predictive values (NPVs) of >97%, accurately screening out Caucasian and Chinese men with low risk of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS:OST and MOST can effectively rule out osteoporosis for both Caucasian and Chinese men, and compared to referring men 65 years and older for BMD DXA testing, they save a third of DXA resources.
Authors: Neil Binkley; John P Bilezikian; David L Kendler; Edward S Leib; E Michael Lewiecki; Steven M Petak Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2006-05-12 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Eric Orwoll; Janet Babich Blank; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jane Cauley; Steven Cummings; Kristine Ensrud; Cora Lewis; Peggy M Cawthon; Robert Marcus; Lynn M Marshall; Joan McGowan; Kathy Phipps; Sherry Sherman; Marcia L Stefanick; Katie Stone Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: John T Schousboe; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Robert L Kane; Steven R Cummings; Eric S Orwoll; L Joseph Melton; Douglas C Bauer; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
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
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