Literature DB >> 8069054

Population screening for low bone mineral density: do non-attenders have a lower risk of osteoporosis?

D J Torgerson1, C Donaldson, M J Garton, I T Russell, M Westland, D M Reid.   

Abstract

Poor compliance may be detrimental to the effectiveness of a screening programme if those at greatest risk of the disease do not attend. Therefore we undertook a study to test whether non-attenders to a screening programme for low bone density, a risk factor for osteoporosis, were at a differential risk of low bone density compared with attenders. Seven hundred and eighty-nine women aged 45-49 years living within 32 km of Aberdeen were selected at random from the Community Health Index and invited to attend for screening for low bone density as a risk of factor for osteoporosis. Attenders and non-attenders were surveyed regarding their risk factors for osteoporosis. Non-attenders were significantly heavier than attenders. In addition, 6 non-attenders who subsequently chose to attend had significantly higher body weight and bone mineral density, at Ward's triangle, than initial attenders. Non-attenders to a screening service for bone density may be at lower risk of developing osteoporosis. Non-attendance, therefore, would not be detrimental to the cost-effectiveness of a screening service for bone density. However, this study indicates there is a potential for response bias in studies of bone density and osteoporosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8069054     DOI: 10.1007/bf01623061

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


  21 in total

1.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Towards readability and style.

Authors:  A Scotland
Journal:  Community Med       Date:  1985-05

3.  How "representative" are subjects attending a coronary risk factor screening programme?

Authors:  L A Simons; J Simons
Journal:  Aust N Z J Med       Date:  1984-02

4.  Recruitment methods for screening programmes: trial of a new method within a regional osteoporosis study.

Authors:  M J Garton; D J Torgerson; C Donaldson; I T Russell; D M Reid
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-07-11

5.  Influence of fatness, intelligence, education and sociodemographic factors on response rate in a health survey.

Authors:  S Sonne-Holm; T I Sørensen; G Jensen; P Schnohr
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Development and evaluation of an index to predict early postmenopausal bone loss.

Authors:  J A Falch; L Sandvik; E C Van Beresteijn
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  The DOM project for the early detection of breast cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Authors:  F de Waard; H J Collette; J J Rombach; E A Baanders-van Halewijn; C Honing
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1984

8.  Effect of weight, smoking, and estrogen use on the risk of hip and forearm fractures in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  A R Williams; N S Weiss; C L Ure; J Ballard; J R Daling
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight.

Authors:  M Palta; R J Prineas; R Berman; P Hannan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents in a prospective study of osteoporosis.

Authors:  L K Heilbrun; P D Ross; R D Wasnich; K Yano; J M Vogel
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  4 in total

1.  Risk factors for breast cancer. Socioeconomic differences might be explained by body mass.

Authors:  D Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-12-17

2.  Differences in the characteristics of responders and non-responders in a prevalence survey of vertebral osteoporosis. European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group.

Authors:  T W O'Neill; D Marsden; A J Silman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Which vertebrae should be assessed using lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  M Jergas; M Breitenseher; C C Glüer; D Black; P Lang; S Grampp; K Engelke; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Bone mineral density measurements: are they worth while?

Authors:  D J Torgerson; C Donaldson; D M Reid
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 18.000

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.