E T Middleton1, S A Steel. 1. Centre for Metabolic Bone Disease, Hull Royal Infirmary, Brocklehurst Building, 220-236 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 2RW, UK. etmiddleton@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Fracture risk is underestimated in women with unknown vertebral fractures. Using VFA, we compared two screening methods: targeted (6,388 women) and routine (2,176 women). Routine screening detected fractures in 20%. Targeted screening only required 5% attending for DXA to undergo VFA but only detected 9.6% of women with fractures. INTRODUCTION: BMD alone underestimates fracture risk in women with unknown vertebral fractures. We report the results of routine vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) screening and compare with targeted screening. METHOD: Our centre initially targeted VFA at women with reasons to suspect a vertebral fracture. Later we changed to routine VFA screening for all women over 65. We retrospectively compare each screening method's ability to detect vertebral fractures. RESULTS: Six thousand three hundred and eighty-eight women over 65 underwent DXA during the period of targeted VFA and 2,176 during routine VFA. Routine VFA detected 420 (20.0%) women with fracture. Most vertebral fractures (56.2%) occurred in women with osteopenia. Routine VFA would be expected to alter the management of 1 in 6 osteopenic women. Targeted VFA was performed in 332 (5.2%) women detecting 122 (1.9%) women with fractures. It was estimated that targeted VFA only detected 9.6% of women with a vertebral fracture. Targeted VFA failed to detect fractures in 18.1% of the population attending for DXA and in 29% of those with osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: Routine VFA detects vertebral fractures in 20% of women over 65. Targeted VFA greatly reduces the number of VFAs performed but only detects a minority of the women with vertebral fractures.
UNLABELLED: Fracture risk is underestimated in women with unknown vertebral fractures. Using VFA, we compared two screening methods: targeted (6,388 women) and routine (2,176 women). Routine screening detected fractures in 20%. Targeted screening only required 5% attending for DXA to undergo VFA but only detected 9.6% of women with fractures. INTRODUCTION: BMD alone underestimates fracture risk in women with unknown vertebral fractures. We report the results of routine vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) screening and compare with targeted screening. METHOD: Our centre initially targeted VFA at women with reasons to suspect a vertebral fracture. Later we changed to routine VFA screening for all women over 65. We retrospectively compare each screening method's ability to detect vertebral fractures. RESULTS: Six thousand three hundred and eighty-eight women over 65 underwent DXA during the period of targeted VFA and 2,176 during routine VFA. Routine VFA detected 420 (20.0%) women with fracture. Most vertebral fractures (56.2%) occurred in women with osteopenia. Routine VFA would be expected to alter the management of 1 in 6 osteopenicwomen. Targeted VFA was performed in 332 (5.2%) women detecting 122 (1.9%) women with fractures. It was estimated that targeted VFA only detected 9.6% of women with a vertebral fracture. Targeted VFA failed to detect fractures in 18.1% of the population attending for DXA and in 29% of those with osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: Routine VFA detects vertebral fractures in 20% of women over 65. Targeted VFA greatly reduces the number of VFAs performed but only detects a minority of the women with vertebral fractures.
Authors: A A Ismail; W Cockerill; C Cooper; J D Finn; K Abendroth; G Parisi; D Banzer; L I Benevolenskaya; A K Bhalla; J B Armas; J B Cannata; P D Delmas; J Dequeker; G Dilsen; R Eastell; O Ershova; J A Falch; B Felsch; S Havelka; K Hoszowski; I Jajic; U Kragl; O Johnell; A Lopez Vaz; R Lorenc; G Lyritis; F Marchand; P Masaryk; C Matthis; T Miazgowski; H A Pols; G Poor; A Rapado; H H Raspe; D M Reid; W Reisinger; J Janott; C Scheidt-Nave; J Stepan; C Todd; K Weber; A D Woolf; G Ambrecht; W Gowin; D Felsenberg; M Lunt; J A Kanis; J Reeve; A J Silman; T W O'Neill Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: F Cosman; J H Krege; A C Looker; J T Schousboe; B Fan; N Sarafrazi Isfahani; J A Shepherd; K D Krohn; P Steiger; K E Wilson; H K Genant Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E Kanterewicz; E Puigoriol; J García-Barrionuevo; L del Rio; M Casellas; P Peris Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: R Y van der Velde; S P G Bours; C E Wyers; W F Lems; P P M M Geusens; J P W van den Bergh Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: John H Krege; Xiaohai Wan; Brian C Lentle; Claudie Berger; Lisa Langsetmo; Jonathan D Adachi; Jerilynn C Prior; Alan Tenenhouse; Jacques P Brown; Nancy Kreiger; Wojciech P Olszynski; Robert G Josse; David Goltzman Journal: Bonekey Rep Date: 2013-09-04