BACKGROUND: In Europe, a case-finding strategy for osteoporosis is recommended above widespread population-based screening. However, no universally accepted policy currently exists. In 2005, the Dutch College of General Practitioners published guidelines for GPs to select patients for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the Dutch guidelines to select participants with osteoporosis for DXA. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional. SETTING: A total of 345 females aged over 50 years (mean age = 62 years, standard deviation [SD] = 8.3) and 99 males over 65 years of age (mean age = 72 years, SD = 5.2) of a Dutch general practice. METHOD: Calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Dutch case-finding instrument for selecting patients with osteoporosis for DXA measurement. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 19.5%, specificity 85.6%, PPV 18.6%, and NPV 86.6%. CONCLUSION: The Dutch guidelines are unreliable in detecting people at risk for osteoporosis.
BACKGROUND: In Europe, a case-finding strategy for osteoporosis is recommended above widespread population-based screening. However, no universally accepted policy currently exists. In 2005, the Dutch College of General Practitioners published guidelines for GPs to select patients for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the Dutch guidelines to select participants with osteoporosis for DXA. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional. SETTING: A total of 345 females aged over 50 years (mean age = 62 years, standard deviation [SD] = 8.3) and 99 males over 65 years of age (mean age = 72 years, SD = 5.2) of a Dutch general practice. METHOD: Calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Dutch case-finding instrument for selecting patients with osteoporosis for DXA measurement. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 19.5%, specificity 85.6%, PPV 18.6%, and NPV 86.6%. CONCLUSION: The Dutch guidelines are unreliable in detecting people at risk for osteoporosis.
Authors: H K Genant; C Cooper; G Poor; I Reid; G Ehrlich; J Kanis; B E Nordin; E Barrett-Connor; D Black; J P Bonjour; B Dawson-Hughes; P D Delmas; J Dequeker; S Ragi Eis; C Gennari; O Johnell; C C Johnston; E M Lau; U A Liberman; R Lindsay; T J Martin; B Masri; C A Mautalen; P J Meunier; N Khaltaev Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
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
Authors: L K Koh; W B Sedrine; T P Torralba; A Kung; S Fujiwara; S P Chan; Q R Huang; R Rajatanavin; K S Tsai; H M Park; J Y Reginster Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J A Kanis; N Burlet; C Cooper; P D Delmas; J-Y Reginster; F Borgstrom; R Rizzoli Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-02-12 Impact factor: 4.507