P Machado1, M Coutinho, J A P da Silva. 1. Rheumatology Department, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal. pedrommcmachado@gmail.com
Abstract
SUMMARY: Clinicians need tools to identify patients most likely to benefit from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for which cost-effectiveness does not allow generalized screening. This study supports the utility of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in selecting men for BMD testing. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins. INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate the utility of three osteoporosis (OP) risk assessment tools in a large group of Portuguese men aged 50 or more and to determine the best cutoff value to be used for selecting men for bone densitometry. METHODS: We assessed the performance of three simple tools in 202 randomly selected men: body weight criterion (BWC), osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA), and a modified version of the OSTA equation (OST). Previously published cutoff values (validated in postmenopausal women) and three additional cutoff values were tested. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for correctly selecting men with OP (defined by BMD testing) were determined. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 63.8 years. According to the World Health Organization diagnostic categories, 16.8% had osteoporosis. The best performing cutoffs for correctly selecting men with OP for BMD testing were OST < 3 (SE = 75.5%, SP = 50.0%, AUROC = 0.632), OSTA < 3 (SE = 73.5%, SP = 58.3%, AUROC = 0.659), and BWC < 75 kg (SE = 73.5%, SP = 61.3%, AUROC = 0.674). CONCLUSIONS: OP risk assessment tools seem to be useful in men aged 50 or more. Best cutoff values are different from those recommended for postmenopausal women. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins.
SUMMARY: Clinicians need tools to identify patients most likely to benefit from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for which cost-effectiveness does not allow generalized screening. This study supports the utility of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in selecting men for BMD testing. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins. INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate the utility of three osteoporosis (OP) risk assessment tools in a large group of Portuguese men aged 50 or more and to determine the best cutoff value to be used for selecting men for bone densitometry. METHODS: We assessed the performance of three simple tools in 202 randomly selected men: body weight criterion (BWC), osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA), and a modified version of the OSTA equation (OST). Previously published cutoff values (validated in postmenopausal women) and three additional cutoff values were tested. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for correctly selecting men with OP (defined by BMD testing) were determined. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 63.8 years. According to the World Health Organization diagnostic categories, 16.8% had osteoporosis. The best performing cutoffs for correctly selecting men with OP for BMD testing were OST < 3 (SE = 75.5%, SP = 50.0%, AUROC = 0.632), OSTA < 3 (SE = 73.5%, SP = 58.3%, AUROC = 0.659), and BWC < 75 kg (SE = 73.5%, SP = 61.3%, AUROC = 0.674). CONCLUSIONS: OP risk assessment tools seem to be useful in men aged 50 or more. Best cutoff values are different from those recommended for postmenopausal women. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins.
Authors: Viviana Tavares; Helena Canhão; José António Melo Gomes; Eugénia Simões; José Carlos Romeu; Paulo Coelho; Rui André Santos; Armando Malcata; Domingos Araújo; Carlos Vaz; Jaime Branco Journal: Acta Reumatol Port Date: 2007 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.290
Authors: D M Black; M Steinbuch; L Palermo; P Dargent-Molina; R Lindsay; M S Hoseyni; O Johnell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Nguyen D Nguyen; Chatlert Pongchaiyakul; Jacqueline R Center; John A Eisman; Tuan V Nguyen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 6.741
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
Authors: Cheng-Shyuan Rau; Pao-Jen Kuo; Shao-Chun Wu; Yi-Chun Chen; Hsiao-Yun Hsieh; Ching-Hua Hsieh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 3.390