Literature DB >> 25986135

Underuse and Overuse of Osteoporosis Screening in a Regional Health System: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Anna Lee D Amarnath1,2,3, Peter Franks1,2, John A Robbins2,4, Guibo Xing2, Joshua J Fenton5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for osteoporosis with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for women aged ≥ 65 years and younger women with increased risk. "Choosing Wisely" initiatives advise avoiding DXA screening in women younger than 65 years without osteoporosis risk factors.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the extent to which DXA screening is used in accordance with USPSTF recommendations within a regional health system.
DESIGN: This was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study within 13 primary care clinics in the Sacramento, CA region. PATIENTS: The study included 50,995 women aged 40-85 years without prior osteoporosis screening, diagnosis, or treatment attending primary care visits from 2006 to 2012, observed for a mean of 4.4 years. MAIN MEASURES: We examined incidence of DXA screening. Covariates included age, race/ethnicity, and osteoporosis risk factors (body mass index < 20, glucocorticoid use, secondary osteoporosis, prior high-risk facture, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol abuse, and current smoking). KEY
RESULTS: Among previously unscreened women for whom the USPSTF recommends screening, 7-year cumulative incidence of DXA screening was 58.8 % among women aged 60-64 years with ≥ 1 risk factor (95 % CI: 51.9-65.8 %), 57.8 % for women aged 65-74 years (95 % CI: 55.6-60.0 %), and 42.7 % for women aged ≥ 75 years (95 % CI: 38.7-46.7 %). Among women for whom the USPSTF does not recommend screening, 7-year cumulative incidence was 45.5 % among women aged 50-59 years (95 % CI 44.1-46.9 %) and 58.6 % among women aged 60-64 years without risk factors (95 % CI 55.9-61.4 %).
CONCLUSIONS: DXA screening was underused in women at increased fracture risk, including women aged ≥ 65 years. Meanwhile, DXA screening was common among women at low fracture risk, such as younger women without osteoporosis risk factors. Interventions may be needed to augment the value of population screening for osteoporosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; osteoporosis; overuse; screening; underuse

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25986135      PMCID: PMC4636552          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3349-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  22 in total

1.  Osteoporosis screening and treatment guidelines: are they being followed?

Authors:  Peter F Schnatz; Kimberly A Marakovits; Melissa Dubois; David M O'Sullivan
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  The "top 5" lists in primary care: meeting the responsibility of professionalism.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-23

Review 3.  Screening for osteoporosis: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Elizabeth M Haney; Tracy Dana; Christina Bougatsos; Roger Chou
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

Authors:  Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Request fulfillment in office practice: antecedents and relationship to outcomes.

Authors:  Richard L Kravitz; Robert A Bell; Rahman Azari; Edward Krupat; Steven Kelly-Reif; David Thom
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Quality of preventive care for diabetes: effects of visit frequency and competing demands.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Michael Von Korff; Elizabeth H B Lin; Paul Ciechanowski; Bessie A Young
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine.

Authors:  Nicole C Wright; Anne C Looker; Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey R Curtis; Elizabeth S Delzell; Susan Randall; Bess Dawson-Hughes
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Fracture risk perception study: patient self-perceptions of bone health often disagree with calculated fracture risk.

Authors:  Michael L Grover; Frederick D Edwards; Yu-Hui H Chang; Curtiss B Cook; Margaret C Behrens; Amylou C Dueck
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb

9.  Overuse of health care services: when less is more … more or less.

Authors:  Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Peter B Bach
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 10.  Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Nathan M Souza; Rolf J Sebaldt; Jean A Mackay; Jeanette C Prorok; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  15 in total

1.  Incidence and Predictors of Repeat Bone Mineral Densitometry: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Emily C White VanGompel; Peter Franks; John A Robbins; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Predictors of bone mineral density testing among older women on Medicare.

Authors:  Y Lou; S W Edmonds; M P Jones; F Ullrich; G L Wehby; P Cram; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Re: Underuse and Overuse of Osteoporosis Screening in a Regional Health System: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Robert Ferrari
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Screening Tests for Osteoporosis: Too Few for Some, Too Many for Others.

Authors:  Douglas C Bauer
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT Hounsfield unit histogram analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in predicting osteoporosis of the femur.

Authors:  Hyun Kyung Lim; Hong Il Ha; Sun-Young Park; Kwanseop Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Osteoporosis Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, and Screening in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Giovanni Adami; Kenneth G Saag
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 4.592

7.  UNDERSTANDING OSTEOPOROSIS SCREENING PRACTICES IN MEN: A NATIONWIDE PHYSICIAN SURVEY.

Authors:  Palak Choksi; Brittany L Gay; David Reyes-Gastelum; Megan R Haymart; Maria Papaleontiou
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.443

8.  Activating Patients With a Tailored Bone Density Test Results Letter and Educational Brochure: the PAADRN Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Fredric D Wolinsky; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Sylvie F Hall; Michael P Jones; Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram; Douglas W Roblin
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 2.617

9.  Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P Cram; F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; S F Hall; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; K G Saag
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 10.  Quality Measures and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Osteoporosis-an Update.

Authors:  S French; S Choden; Gabriela Schmajuk
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.