SUMMARY: The rates of bone mineral density testing for osteoporosis among healthy mid-life women are high, although their osteoporosis or fracture risk is low. To reduce unnecessary testing, we created and evaluated a tool to guide bone density testing based on the woman's age, weight, fracture history, and menopausal status. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to improve case finding of mid-life women with low bone mass on bone mineral density (BMD) assessment. METHODS: Among healthy women aged 40-60 years having their first BMD test, osteoporosis risk factors were assessed by questionnaire and BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The combination of risk factors that best discriminated women with/without low bone mass (T-score ≤ -2.0) was determined from the logistic regression model area under the curve (AUC) and internally validated using bootstrapping. Using the model odds ratios, a clinical prediction rule was created and its discriminative properties assessed and compared with that of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST). Sensitivity analyses examined results for pre-/peri- and post-menopausal women, separately. RESULTS: Of 1,664 women referred for baseline BMD testing, 433 with conditions known to be associated with bone loss were excluded. Of 1,231 eligible women, 944 (77%) participated and 87 (9.2%) had low bone mass (35 pre-/peri- and 52 post-menopausal). Four risk factors for low bone mass were identified and incorporated into a clinical prediction rule. Selecting women for BMD testing with weight of ≤70 kg or any two of age >51, years' post-menopause of ≥1, and history of fragility fracture after age 40 was associated with 93% sensitivity to identify women with low bone mass, compared with 47% sensitivity for an OST score of ≤1 (AUC 0.75 versus OST AUC 0.69, p = 0.04). Results restricted to post-menopausal women were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among healthy mid-life women receiving a baseline BMD test, few had low bone mass, supporting the need for guidance about testing. A prediction rule with four risk factors had improved sensitivity over the OST. Further validation is warranted.
SUMMARY: The rates of bone mineral density testing for osteoporosis among healthy mid-life women are high, although their osteoporosis or fracture risk is low. To reduce unnecessary testing, we created and evaluated a tool to guide bone density testing based on the woman's age, weight, fracture history, and menopausal status. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to improve case finding of mid-life women with low bone mass on bone mineral density (BMD) assessment. METHODS: Among healthy women aged 40-60 years having their first BMD test, osteoporosis risk factors were assessed by questionnaire and BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The combination of risk factors that best discriminated women with/without low bone mass (T-score ≤ -2.0) was determined from the logistic regression model area under the curve (AUC) and internally validated using bootstrapping. Using the model odds ratios, a clinical prediction rule was created and its discriminative properties assessed and compared with that of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST). Sensitivity analyses examined results for pre-/peri- and post-menopausal women, separately. RESULTS: Of 1,664 women referred for baseline BMD testing, 433 with conditions known to be associated with bone loss were excluded. Of 1,231 eligible women, 944 (77%) participated and 87 (9.2%) had low bone mass (35 pre-/peri- and 52 post-menopausal). Four risk factors for low bone mass were identified and incorporated into a clinical prediction rule. Selecting women for BMD testing with weight of ≤70 kg or any two of age >51, years' post-menopause of ≥1, and history of fragility fracture after age 40 was associated with 93% sensitivity to identify women with low bone mass, compared with 47% sensitivity for an OST score of ≤1 (AUC 0.75 versus OST AUC 0.69, p = 0.04). Results restricted to post-menopausal women were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among healthy mid-life women receiving a baseline BMD test, few had low bone mass, supporting the need for guidance about testing. A prediction rule with four risk factors had improved sensitivity over the OST. Further validation is warranted.
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: E J Waugh; M-A Lam; G A Hawker; J McGowan; A Papaioannou; A M Cheung; A B Hodsman; W D Leslie; K Siminoski; S A Jamal Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Bruce Ettinger; Teresa A Hillier; Alice Pressman; Maggie Che; David A Hanley Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Dolors Martínez-Aguilà; Carmen Gómez-Vaquero; Antoni Rozadilla; Montserrat Romera; Javier Narváez; Joan M Nolla Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Lisa Langsetmo; David Goltzman; Christopher S Kovacs; Jonathan D Adachi; David A Hanley; Nancy Kreiger; Robert Josse; Alexandra Papaioannou; Wojciech P Olszynski; Sophie A Jamal Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Sarah E P Munce; Sonya Allin; Leslie Carlin; Joanna Sale; Gillian Hawker; Sandra Kim; Debra A Butt; Irene Polidoulis; Karen Tu; Susan B Jaglal Journal: J Osteoporos Date: 2016-01-19
Authors: Sarah E P Munce; Debra A Butt; Rokeni Sumi Anantharajah; Susana Huang; Sonya Allin; Tarik Bereket; Susan B Jaglal Journal: J Osteoporos Date: 2016-12-06
Authors: Shaanthana Subramaniam; Chin-Yi Chan; Ima-Nirwana Soelaiman; Norazlina Mohamed; Norliza Muhammad; Fairus Ahmad; Pei-Yuen Ng; Nor Aini Jamil; Noorazah Abd Aziz; Kok-Yong Chin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.390