Literature DB >> 25614141

US Preventative Services Task Force FRAX threshold has a low sensitivity to detect osteoporosis in women ages 50-64 years.

S Bansal1, J L Pecina, S P Merry, K A Kennel, J Maxson, S Quigg, T D Thacher.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends consideration for screening for osteoporosis in women under age 65 who have an estimated 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk of 9.3 % or higher. We found that this threshold for osteoporosis screening in women ages 50-64 years old has a low sensitivity to detect osteoporosis.
INTRODUCTION: The US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends consideration of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in women under ages 50-64 with a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk of 9.3 % or higher, as estimated by the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) tool. We assessed the performance of the 9.3 % MOF risk threshold for detecting osteoporosis and evaluated whether DXA indication appeared appropriate, based on USPSTF criteria and other risk factors, at our institution.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective record review of women ages 50-64.5 years old to determine clinical factors and FRAX scores of women undergoing a DXA at our institution over a 6-month period after the USPSTF recommendations were released and evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the 9.3 % MOF threshold to detect densitometric osteoporosis. Additionally, using the USPSTF criteria and several additional risk factors, we evaluated the extent of potentially inappropriate DXA use in women ages 50 to 64 years in a large primary care practice in an academic medical center.
RESULTS: The analysis included 465 DXA tests. The overall sensitivity and specificity of a FRAX-calculated MOF risk ≥9.3 % was 37 and 74 %, respectively, for the detection of osteoporosis. The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.58. Lowering the FRAX risk threshold to 5.5 % would increase the sensitivity of detecting osteoporosis in our population from 37 to 80 % while reducing the specificity from 74 to 27 %. Out of 465 DXAs, 371 (79.8 %) were classified as appropriately ordered per our pre-specified criteria. Of the 120 women with osteoporosis at the hip and/or spine based on T-score values of -2.5 or less, 14 DXAs (11.7 %) were classified as potentially inappropriate based on a FRAX-predicted MOF risk less than 9.3 % and lack of additional pre-specified risk factors.
CONCLUSION: We found that the USPSTF-recommended MOF risk threshold of 9.3 % for osteoporosis screening in women ages 50-64 years old has a low sensitivity to detect osteoporosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25614141     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3026-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  10 in total

1.  Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care.

Authors:  Amir Qaseem; Patrick Alguire; Paul Dallas; Lawrence E Feinberg; Faith T Fitzgerald; Carrie Horwitch; Linda Humphrey; Richard LeBlond; Darilyn Moyer; Jeffrey G Wiese; Steven Weinberger
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: executive summary of recommendations.

Authors:  Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Evaluation of decision rules for referring women for bone densitometry by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  S M Cadarette; S B Jaglal; T M Murray; W J McIsaac; L Joseph; J P Brown
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-04       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  ACOG Practice Bulletin N. 129. Osteoporosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Use of clinical prediction rules in detecting osteoporosis in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Karen F Mauck; Maria-Teresa Cuddihy; Elizabeth J Atkinson; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-03-14

6.  Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry.

Authors:  S M Cadarette; S B Jaglal; N Kreiger; W J McIsaac; G A Darlington; J V Tu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-05-02       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women 50 to 64 years old: comparison of US Preventive Services Task Force strategy and two traditional strategies in the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 9.  Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.

Authors:  Lionel S Lim; Laura J Hoeksema; Kevin Sherin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Performance of risk indices for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Piet Geusens; Marc C Hochberg; Danny J M van der Voort; Huibert Pols; Marjolein van der Klift; Ethel Siris; Mary E Melton; Jennifer Turpin; Christine Byrnes; Philip Ross
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.616

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Time to Clinically Relevant Fracture Risk Scores in Postmenopausal Women.

Authors:  Margaret L Gourlay; Robert A Overman; Jason P Fine; Carolyn J Crandall; John Robbins; John T Schousboe; Kristine E Ensrud; Erin S LeBlanc; Margery L Gass; Karen C Johnson; Catherine R Womack; Andrea Z LaCroix
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  Osteoporosis: a discussion on the past 5 years.

Authors:  Kyle M Schweser; Brett D Crist
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 3.  A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Cyrus Cooper; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Comparison of FRAX in postmenopausal Asian women with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Chen Wang; Jun Liu; Li Xiao; Dan Liu; Wenjing Yan; Ting Hu; Kunhong Li; Xiaociao Hua; Xianshang Zeng
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 1.671

Review 5.  Pharmacological Therapy of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Current Review of Literature.

Authors:  Vito Pavone; Gianluca Testa; Serena M C Giardina; Andrea Vescio; Domenico A Restivo; Giuseppe Sessa
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 5.810

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.