SUMMARY: To determine the relationship between risk factors and use of DXA scans. Our study showed a relatively high use of DXA in low-risk women and the relatively low coverage in women with multiple risk factors. Moreover, distance to DXA clinics, age, and socio-economic factors are associated with the use of DXA. INTRODUCTION: To determine the relationship between risk factors for fracture and use of DXA scans in Danish women in relation to distance to DXA clinics and socio-economic factors. METHODS: From the Danish National Civil Register we randomly selected 5,000 women aged 40-90 years living in the region of Southern Denmark to receive a mailed questionnaire concerning risk factors for fractures. RESULTS: The respondents rate was 84% and 77% of the invited population were available for analysis. A total of 10.3% of the women without risk factors and only 36% of the women with three or more risk factors had a history of DXA. The likelihood of a history of DXA was higher with increasing FRAX(™) 10-year risk; i.e., 8.7% and 30.2% in patients with a 10-year fracture risk of 0-14.9% and 25-100%, respectively. In women with less than 10 km to nearest DXA facility, 20.2% had a history of DXA, while 11.5% of those with more than 40 km to the nearest scanner had a history of DXA. Logistic regression analysis showed that distance, fracture risk, oral glucocorticoids, low-energy fracture, conditions associated with secondary osteoporosis, low BMI, history of falls, age 65-79 years, spouse status, and income were significantly associated with having a history of DXA. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a relatively high use of DXA in low-risk women and the relatively low coverage in women with multiple risk factors. Moreover, distance to DXA clinics, age, and a number of socio-economic factors are associated with the use of DXA.
SUMMARY: To determine the relationship between risk factors and use of DXA scans. Our study showed a relatively high use of DXA in low-risk women and the relatively low coverage in women with multiple risk factors. Moreover, distance to DXA clinics, age, and socio-economic factors are associated with the use of DXA. INTRODUCTION: To determine the relationship between risk factors for fracture and use of DXA scans in Danish women in relation to distance to DXA clinics and socio-economic factors. METHODS: From the Danish National Civil Register we randomly selected 5,000 women aged 40-90 years living in the region of Southern Denmark to receive a mailed questionnaire concerning risk factors for fractures. RESULTS: The respondents rate was 84% and 77% of the invited population were available for analysis. A total of 10.3% of the women without risk factors and only 36% of the women with three or more risk factors had a history of DXA. The likelihood of a history of DXA was higher with increasing FRAX(™) 10-year risk; i.e., 8.7% and 30.2% in patients with a 10-year fracture risk of 0-14.9% and 25-100%, respectively. In women with less than 10 km to nearest DXA facility, 20.2% had a history of DXA, while 11.5% of those with more than 40 km to the nearest scanner had a history of DXA. Logistic regression analysis showed that distance, fracture risk, oral glucocorticoids, low-energy fracture, conditions associated with secondary osteoporosis, low BMI, history of falls, age 65-79 years, spouse status, and income were significantly associated with having a history of DXA. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a relatively high use of DXA in low-risk women and the relatively low coverage in women with multiple risk factors. Moreover, distance to DXA clinics, age, and a number of socio-economic factors are associated with the use of DXA.
Authors: C De Laet; J A Kanis; A Odén; H Johanson; O Johnell; P Delmas; J A Eisman; H Kroger; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; P J Meunier; H A P Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; H Johansson; C De Laet; J A Eisman; S Fujiwara; H Kroger; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J R Curtis; A Laster; D J Becker; L Carbone; L C Gary; M L Kilgore; R S Matthews; M A Morrisey; K G Saag; S B Tanner; E Delzell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J Compston; A Cooper; C Cooper; R Francis; J A Kanis; D Marsh; E V McCloskey; D M Reid; P Selby; M Wilkins Journal: Maturitas Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: M J Rothmann; S Möller; T Holmberg; M Højberg; J Gram; M Bech; K Brixen; A P Hermann; C-C Glüer; R Barkmann; K H Rubin Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M P Høiberg; K H Rubin; T Holmberg; M J Rothmann; S Möller; J Gram; M Bech; K Brixen; A P Hermann Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Danielle E Robinson; M Sanni Ali; Victoria Y Strauss; Leena Elhussein; Bo Abrahamsen; Nigel K Arden; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Fergus Caskey; Cyrus Cooper; Daniel Dedman; Antonella Delmestri; Andrew Judge; Muhammad Kassim Javaid; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Parameswari Govindarajan; Gudrun Schlewitz; Nathalie Schliefke; David Weisweiler; Volker Alt; Ulrich Thormann; Katrin Susanne Lips; Sabine Wenisch; Alexander C Langheinrich; Daniel Zahner; Nasr Y Hemdan; Wolfgang Böcker; Reinhard Schnettler; Christian Heiss Journal: Med Sci Monit Basic Res Date: 2013-02-28