Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tools Research Articles

Post-Stroke Osteoporosis Screening: A Scoping Review.

There are no specific screening recommendations for post-stroke osteoporosis despite evidence that people post-stroke are at heightened risk of fragility fractures. Our objective was to explore the extent of evidence and map the current literature available for osteoporosis screening in the post-stroke population. This scoping review searched for articles in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases published in English before May 2024, involving osteoporosis screening for adults after stroke. Title and abstract screening as well as full text review and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Analysis of the studies is descriptive and narrative. Eight articles met inclusion criteria: five published articles and three peer-reviewed conference abstracts. Three study designs were utilized: four cross-sectional studies, three cohort studies, and one survey. Four studies investigated post-stroke osteoporosis screening rates, two looked at screening pathways for post-stroke osteoporosis, and two assessed novel osteoporosis screening tools. No post-stroke osteoporosis screening guidelines were found. Across all included studies, reported screening rates for post-stroke osteoporosis were less than 10%. This scoping review emphasizes the need for osteoporosis screening guidelines and risk assessment tools specific to the post-stroke population.

Best Laboratory Screening in Diagnosing Secondary Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool and the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group Performance in Determining Clinical Risk: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the Bone Health in Postmenopausal Brazilian Women.

Identifying postmenopausal women with a high risk of having osteoporosis and fractures is a current challenge. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of biochemical tests in identifying secondary osteoporosis and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in identifying fracture risk. Data from biochemical tests and bone densitometry of postmenopausal women were analyzed. Additionally, the FRAX result was obtained and the patients were classified according to the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). A total of 646 women were evaluated, of whom 201 (31.1%) had osteoporosis or a previous frailty fracture. These women had statistically different parathyroid hormone (PTH) and alkaline phosphatase serum levels (p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively) than those without osteoporosis or fracture. However, those at high risk had a higher prevalence of hypovitaminosis D (46% vs. 36%) and hypocalciuria (17% vs. 9%). The FRAX showed an area under the curve of 0.757 (p<0.01) and 0.788 (p<0.01) for identifying women at risk for "major fractures" and "hip," respectively. The NOGG categorization had a sensitivity of 19% to identify high-risk women, a specificity of 91.3% for low-risk women, with a positive predictive value of 57.4% and a negative predictive value of 64.6%. The evaluation of PTH, 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, serum calcium, and 24-hr urinary calcium proved adequate for initial osteoporosis screening. The FRAX tool has a regular ability to screen women at risk for fracture, and the NOGG method has high specificity to identify those at low risk.

Evaluation of the performance of osteoporosis/fracture screening models to identify high-risk women for osteoporosis: Bushehr elderly health (BEH) program.

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of valid risk assessment models developed for osteoporosis/ fracture screening to identify women in need of bone density measurement in a population of Iranian elderly women. This study was performed using the data of Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program, a population-based cohort study of elderly population aged ≥ 60 years. Seven osteoporosis risk assessment tools, including Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool (MOST), Osteoporosis Prescreening Risk Assessment (OPERA), Osteoporosis Prescreening Model for Iranian Postmenopausal women (OPMIP), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), as well as Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) were included in the study. By using osteoporosis definition based on BMD results, the performance measurement criteria of diagnostic tests such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Youden index for each model were calculated and the models were compared. A total of 1237 female participants with the mean age of 69.1 ± 6.3 years were included. Overall, 733 (59%) participants had osteoporosis, and about 80% had no history of fracture. The sensitivity of the seven models ranged from 16.7% (OSIRIS) to 100% (ORAI and MOST) at their recommended cut-off points. Moreover,their specificity ranged from 0.0% (ORAI and MOST) to 78.9% (OSTA). The FRAX and OPERA had the optimal performance with the Youden index of 0.237 and 0.226, respectively. Moreover, after combining these models, the sensitivity of them increased to 85.4%. We found that the FRAX (model with 11 simple variables) and OPERA (model with 5 simple variables) had the best performance. By combining the models, the performance of each was improved. Further studies are needed to adopt the model and to find the best cut-off point in the Iranian postmenopausal women.

Management of Osteoporosis and Spinal Fractures: Contemporary Guidelines and Evolving Paradigms.

Physicians involved in treating spine fractures secondary to osteopenia and osteoporosis should know the pathogenesis and current guidelines on managing the underlying diminished bone mineral density, as worldwide fracture prevention campaigns are trailing behind in meeting their goals. This is a narrative review exploring the various imaging and laboratory tests used to diagnose osteoporotic fractures and a comprehensive compilation of contemporary medical and surgical management. We have incorporated salient recommendations from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), and the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). The use of modern scoring systems such as Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) for evaluating fracture risk in osteoporosis with a 10-year probability of hip fracture and major fractures in the spine, forearm, hip, or shoulder is highlighted. This osteoporosis risk assessment tool can be easily incorporated into the preoperative bone health optimization strategies, especially before elective spine surgery in osteoporotic patients. The role of primary surgical intervention for vertebral compression fracture and secondary fracture prevention with pharmacological therapy is described, with randomized clinical trial-based wisdom on its timing and dosage, drug holiday, adverse effects, and relevant evidence-based literature. We also aim to present an evidence-based clinical management algorithm for treating osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures, tumor-induced osteoporosis, or hardware stabilization in elderly trauma patients in the setting of their impaired bone health. The recent guidelines and recommendations on surgical intervention by various medical societies are covered, along with outcome studies that reveal the efficacy of cement augmentation of vertebral compression fractures via vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty versus conservative medical management in the elderly population.

Application of Machine Learning to Identify Clinically Meaningful Risk Group for Osteoporosis in Individuals Under the Recommended Age for Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis; it is generally recommended in men ≥ 70 and women ≥ 65years old. Therefore, assessment of clinical risk factors for osteoporosis is very important in individuals under the recommended age for DXA. Here, we examine the diagnostic performance of machine learning-based prediction models for osteoporosis in individuals under the recommended age for DXA examination. Data of 2210 men aged 50-69 and 1099 women aged 50-64 obtained from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey IV-V were analyzed. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) was used to find relevant clinical features and applied to three machine learning models: XGBoost, logistic regression, and a multilayer perceptron. For the prediction of osteoporosis, the XGBoost model using the top 20 features extracted from XGBoost showed the most reliable performance with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.73 and 0.79 in men and women, respectively. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shapley additive explanation values based on a risk-score model obtained from XGBoost and conventional osteoporosis risk assessment tools for prediction of osteoporosis using optimal cut-off values for each model. We observed that a cut-off risk score of ≥ 28 in men and ≥ 47 in women was optimal to classify a positive screening for osteoporosis (an AUROC of 0.86 in men and 0.91 in women). The XGBoost-based osteoporosis-prediction model outperformed conventional risk assessment tools. Therefore, machine learning-based prediction models are a more suitable option than conventional risk assessment methods for screening osteoporosis in individuals under the recommended age for DXA examination.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Different Screening Tools for Identifying Osteoporosis Risk Among Post-Menopausal Filipino Women Aged 45–65 Years

Abstract Early screening of osteoporosis decreases fracture risk. Several identified clinical risk factors led to the development of screening tools to estimate osteoporosis risk. Bone Mineral Densitometry (BMD) as a diagnostic tool for screening is not practical because of high cost and poor availability. The extensively studied osteoporosis screening tools are: Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), the Age Bulk One or Never Estrogen (ABONE), body weight (WEIGHT), and the Osteoporosis Risk Index (OSIRIS). These tools were developed and validated in Caucasians. Validation of these tools for specific populations is necessary because of the observed variations in BMD across geographic and ethnic groups. To date, the utility of these screening tools in the Philippines is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all patients who underwent BMD screening for osteoporosis in a tertiary hospital from January 2015 to September 2020. The study participants were postmenopausal Filipino women aged 45 to 65 years. The subjects had no history of osteopenia, osteoporosis, hip or spine fractures, use of osteoporosis medications, renal insufficiency, bilateral oophorectomy, hysterectomy, or early menopause. We identified demographic and clinical risk factors. These risk factors were used to calculate the risk score of five osteoporosis risk assessment tools: ORAI, ABONE, WEIGHT, OSTA, and ORISIS. Using the DEXA T-score as an external criterion, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic accuracy for each tool were calculated. Included were 1869 subjects with a mean age of 57.9 + 4.3 years old. Osteoporosis, with a T-score of <-2.5 at the lumbar or femoral neck area, was seen in 665 (35.58%). Risk factors such as weight, height, BMI, menopausal years, history of previous fractures, and intake of oral calcium supplements correlated significantly with a higher risk (OR=1.025, 95%CI: 0.974–1.079; OR=1.059, 95%CI: 0.84–1.338; OR=1.063, 95%CI: 0.817–1.383; OR=1.74, 95%CI: 1.198–2.528; and OR=1.088, 95%CI: 0.869–1.319), of having osteoporosis in the said population. ORAI and WEIGHT have the highest probability of identifying patients with a sensitivity of 88.42% and 91.28%, and accuracy of 85.71% and 87.98%. Both performed equally in screening for osteoporosis in this setting. However, ABONE, OSTA, and ORISIS underestimated the number of high-risk osteoporosis patients, because of their low sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. Both ORAI and WEIGHT are simple and easy to calculate and can serve as an initial screening tool to identify Filipino postmenopausal women who are at high risk for osteoporosis. A prospective study with a correlation of fracture occurrences may provide evidence for the value of these tools as a screening test.

Awareness of osteoporosis risk assessment tools and screening recommendations among community pharmacists in Malaysia.

Background The incidence of osteoporosis in Malaysia is increasing due to a fast-ageing population. Because of its silent nature, various osteoporosis risk assessment tools exist to detect high-risk patients and facilitate referrals for bone mineral density measurements. As an accessible point of contact, community pharmacists would benefit from the utilization of these tools and familiarity with guideline recommendations for osteoporosis screening. Aim This study aimed to investigate the awareness of osteoporosis risk assessment tools, practice behaviour towards osteoporosis, and knowledge of guideline recommendations among community pharmacists in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Setting Community pharmacies. Methods This study was a cross-sectional study which sampled 284 community pharmacists practicing in the Klang Valley, using a stratified sampling approach. The study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire which was divided into three sections: demographic data, knowledge of osteoporosis risk assessment tools and guideline recommendations, and practice behaviour towards osteoporosis. Practice behaviour was assessed with 15 items using a 5-point Likert scale. Main outcome measure. Proportion of respondents aware of osteoporosis risk assessment tools and respondent knowledge on guideline recommendations for osteoporosis screening. Results A total of 284 community pharmacists participated in the study. 84.1% of the respondents were aware of at least one risk assessment tool. However, only a small proportion of pharmacists (14.9%) regularly used these tools in their practice. Respondents perceived these tools to be relevant and beneficial, but perception towards their accessibility, ease-of-use, and administration time was mixed, suggesting unfamiliarity. Respondents preferred to conduct clinical assessments based on risk factors, with respondents identifying a mean of 10.1 ± 3.4 out of 15 risk factors. However, several clinically relevant risk factors were frequently unidentified. Knowledge of guideline recommendations among respondents was low. Conclusion There is some awareness of osteoporosis risk assessment tools but use in practice remains low among community pharmacists in Malaysia. There is potential to increase the use of these tools and knowledge of recommendations for osteoporosis screening and referral among community pharmacists.

Screening Tools for Osteoporosis in India: Where Do We Place Them in Current Clinical Care?

The prevalence of osteoporosis is about 40%–50% in postmenopausal women and 20% in older men. The limited availability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners across the country calls for the presence of alternate risk assessment tools to identify those at high risk for osteoporosis. Some of the screening tools available for osteoporosis include Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to assess fracture risk. Clinical parameters that may serve as surrogates include dentition and anthropometric indices. Although screening tools do not supplant the assessment of bone mineral density by DXA, they help identify individuals at high risk for osteoporosis who may be selectively referred for confirming the same.

A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ObjectivesTo compare and assess the performance of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools for screening osteoporosis in Malaysian postmenopausal women. MethodsSix osteoporosis risk assessments tools (the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE], the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, the Age Bulk One or Never Estrogen, the body weight, the Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool, and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians) were used to screen postmenopausal women who had not been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia. These women also underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to confirm the absence or presence of osteoporosis. ResultsA total of 164/224 participants were recruited (response rate, 73.2%), of which only 150/164 (91.5%) completed their DXA scan. Sixteen participants (10.7%) were found to have osteoporosis, whilst 65/150 (43.3%) were found to have osteopenia. Using precision-recall curves, the recall of the tools ranged from 0.50 to 1.00, whilst precision ranged from 0.04 to 0.14. The area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.027 to 0.161. The SCORE had the best balance between recall (1.00), precision (0.04–0.12), and AUC (0.072–0.161). ConclusionsWe found that the SCORE had the best balance between recall, precision, and AUC among the 6 screening tools that were compared among Malaysian postmenopausal women.

Critical Need of Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool for Pakistan.

Critical Need of Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool for Pakistan.

Development of an app as a tool to support research and the prevention of osteoporosis

Abstract Objective: to develop an app for the investigation and prevention of osteoporosis for use by health professionals. Method: the development of the app was performed in six steps: definition of the target audience; survey of validated osteoporosis risk assessment tools in Brazil; programming of the app through the progressive web; selection of data for the preparation of sections of the evaluation form and clinical recommendations; automated auditing and evaluation of the app by health professionals. Results: three screens were prepared for the app. These were based on the data extracted using the Osteorisk, Sapori and Frax tools for sociodemographic data (age, gender, weight, height and ethnicity), health (use of glucocorticoids, hormone replacement therapy, arthritis rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, previous low impact fractures, parents with a history of hip fractures) and health related behaviors (physical activity, alcohol intake and smoking). The appl followed the design pattern and functionalities of the osteoporosis adviser tool (OPAD). Regarding guidelines relating to clinical recommendations, the guidelines on osteoporosis and fall prevention in the elderly of the Ministry of Health and the Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, respectively, were taken as a basis. Conclusion: the app allows the early identification of patients presenting risk factors for osteoporosis and, based on these results, provides guidance on the preventive measures to be adopted, aiming at reducing complications resulting from fractures, hospitalizations, disabilities and deaths.

Evaluation of the validity of osteoporosis and fracture risk assessment tools (IOF One Minute Test, SCORE, and FRAX) in postmenopausal Palestinian women.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of the updated IOF (International Osteoporosis Foundation) One Minute Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Test, FRAX, SCORE as well as age alone to detect the risk of developing osteoporosis in postmenopausal Palestinian women. Three hundred eighty-two women 45years and older were recruited including 131 women with osteoporosis and 251 controls following bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, 287 completed questionnaires of the different risk assessment tools. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were evaluated for each tool using bone BMD as the gold standard for osteoporosis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was the highest for FRAX calculated with BMD for predicting hip fractures (0.897) followed by FRAX for major fractures (0.826) with cut-off values ˃1.5 and ˃7.8%, respectively. The IOF One Minute Test AUC (0.629) was the lowest compared to other tested tools but with sufficient accuracy for predicting the risk of developing osteoporosis with a cut-off value ˃4 total yes questions out of 18. SCORE test and age alone were also as good predictors of risk for developing osteoporosis. According to the ROC curve for age, women ≥64years had a higher risk of developing osteoporosis. Higher percentage of women with low BMD (T-score ≤-1.5) or osteoporosis (T-score ≤-2.5) was found among women who were not exposed to the sun, who had menopause before the age of 45years, or had lower body mass index (BMI) compared to controls. Women who often fall had lower BMI and approximately 27% of the recruited postmenopausal Palestinian women had accidents that caused fractures. Simple self-assessment tools like FRAX without BMD, SCORE, and the IOF One Minute Tests were valid for predicting Palestinian postmenopausal women at high risk of developing osteoporosis.

Validation of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in middle-aged Thai women

Objectives: To validate osteoporosis risk assessment tools in middle-aged Thai women.Methods: A total of 1038 women who had bone mineral density (BMD) measurements using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry were reviewed. Clinical data were used to validate the diagnostic test performance of various osteoporosis risk assessment tools, including ABONE, FRAX®, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE, SOFSURF, and OSTA. The following parameters were evaluated: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy; those with 95% confidence interval (CI) of the receiver operator characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) > 0.5 were considered statistically significant.Results: The subjects had a mean age of 53.01 ± 6.20 years and body mass index (BMI) of 23.98 ± 3.38 kg/m2. Among the osteoporosis risk assessment tools being evaluated, the tools that had ROC-AUC >0.8 and 95% CI >0.5, and could predict osteoporosis at the femoral neck with high specificity of >75% and NPV of >90%, were FRAX® without BMD (ROC-AUC 0.83; 95% CI 0.73–0.93; specificity 99.90; NPV 98.89), SCORE (ROC-AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.78–0.94; specificity 98.79; NPV 98.99), and OSTA (ROC-AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.79–0.94; specificity 75.03; NPV 99.73).Conclusion: The prevalence of osteoporosis in the middle-aged Thai women attending Siriraj Menopause Clinic is 7.3% at the lumbar spine and/or femoral neck. FRAX® without BMD, SCORE, and OSTA have appropriate validity as tools for ruling out osteoporosis in these women.

Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review

Osteoporotic fractures are common in postmenopausal women. Tools are available to estimate the risk of low bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture. This systematic review retrieved articles that evaluated osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in North America. For identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5, most studies of the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation tool (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) reported sensitivity ≥90 %. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was usually <0.75 for SCORE and ≥0.75 for ORAI. Among women 50-64 years old, a Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) threshold ≥9.3 % had a sensitivity of 33 % for identifying BMD T-score ≤-2.5 and 26 % for predicting major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). For predicting MOF, sensitivity was higher for SCORE and Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool equation (OST), and higher in women ≥65 years old. For predicting BMD T-score ≤-2.5 in women ≥65 years old, the sensitivities of SCORE; ORAI; and Age, Body Size, No Estrogen (ABONE) were very high. No optimal osteoporosis risk assessment tool is available for identifying low BMD and MOF risk.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies to Screen for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women

Editorials6 December 2011Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies to Screen for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal WomenJohn T. Schousboe, MD, PhD and Margaret L. Gourlay, MD, MPHJohn T. Schousboe, MD, PhDFrom Park Nicollet Institute for Research & Education, Park Nicollet Health Services, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55416, and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 26599.Search for more papers by this author and Margaret L. Gourlay, MD, MPHFrom Park Nicollet Institute for Research & Education, Park Nicollet Health Services, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55416, and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 26599.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00012 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.—Albert EinsteinThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 years or older and in younger women whose fracture risk is equal to or greater than that of a 65-year-old white woman who has no additional risk factors (1). However, screening recommendations lack evidence-based guidance about screening intervals and when screening should cease (1, 2). Furthermore, screening in younger postmenopausal women is left to the discretion of the clinician, with osteoporosis (3–5) and fracture (6, 7) risk assessment tools as a guide. Although the ...

Selecting men for bone densitometry: performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in Portuguese men

Clinicians need tools to identify patients most likely to benefit from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for which cost-effectiveness does not allow generalized screening. This study supports the utility of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in selecting men for BMD testing. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of three osteoporosis (OP) risk assessment tools in a large group of Portuguese men aged 50 or more and to determine the best cutoff value to be used for selecting men for bone densitometry. We assessed the performance of three simple tools in 202 randomly selected men: body weight criterion (BWC), osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA), and a modified version of the OSTA equation (OST). Previously published cutoff values (validated in postmenopausal women) and three additional cutoff values were tested. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for correctly selecting men with OP (defined by BMD testing) were determined. Mean age of the cohort was 63.8 years. According to the World Health Organization diagnostic categories, 16.8% had osteoporosis. The best performing cutoffs for correctly selecting men with OP for BMD testing were OST < 3 (SE = 75.5%, SP = 50.0%, AUROC = 0.632), OSTA < 3 (SE = 73.5%, SP = 58.3%, AUROC = 0.659), and BWC < 75 kg (SE = 73.5%, SP = 61.3%, AUROC = 0.674). OP risk assessment tools seem to be useful in men aged 50 or more. Best cutoff values are different from those recommended for postmenopausal women. Different cutoff values may be appropriate for different countries and/or ethnic origins.

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older.

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools was studied in women aged 67 years and older. Weight was as accurate as two of the tools to detect low bone density. Discriminatory ability was slightly better for the OST risk tool, which is based only on age and weight. Screening performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools has not been tested in a large, population-based US cohort. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy analysis of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST), Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE), and individual risk factors (age, weight or prior fracture) to identify low central (hip and lumbar spine) bone mineral density (BMD) in 7779 US women aged 67 years and older participating in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. The OST had the greatest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.74, 0.77). Weight had an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.72, 0.75), which was >or=AUC values for the ORAI, SCORE, age or prior fracture. Using cut points from the development papers, the risk tools had sensitivities >or=85% and specificities <or=48%. When new cut points were set to achieve a likelihood ratio of negative 0.1-0.2, the tools ruled out fewer than 1/4 of women without low central BMD. Weight identified low central BMD as accurately as the ORAI and SCORE. The risk tools would be unlikely to show an advantage over simple weight cut points in an osteoporosis screening protocol for elderly women.

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older

Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older

Performance of the osteoporosis risk assessment tool in Moroccan men

Measuring bone mineral density (BMD) is a widely accepted strategy for identifying subjects with an increased risk of fracture. However, because of limited availability of BMD technology in some communities and cost considerations, it has been proposed that BMD measurements be targeted to subjects with risk factors for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) using age and weight have been developed to identify women who are more likely to have low BMD and thus undergo BMD testing. To study the performance of OST in identifying osteoporotic white men in Morocco. We analysed in an epidemiological cross-sectional study the records for 229 white Moroccan men seen at an out-patient rheumatology centre. OST was compared to bone density T scores and the ability of OST to identify men with osteoporosis (T < -2.5) was evaluated. Using an OST score < 2 to recommend dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) referral, sensitivity ranged from 63% at the lumbar spine to 87% at the total hip to detect BMD T scores of -2.5 and specificity from 58 to 59%. The negative predictive value was high at all skeletal sites (87-98%), demonstrating the usefulness of the OST to identify patients who have normal BMD and should not receive DXA testing. The performance of OST among men in Morocco was similar to that reported earlier for the other samples in Asian countries and the USA. The OST is an effective and efficient tool to help target high-risk men for DXA measurement.

Performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in postmenopausal women aged 45–64 years

Osteoporosis risk factor assessment is of uncertain utility in women under 65 years of age. Previous comparative studies of osteoporosis risk assessment tools were not stratified by age. We compared the discriminatory ability of three previously validated osteoporosis risk assessment tools in a referral population of postmenopausal women aged 45-64 years (n=2539) and aged 65-96 years (n=1496) seen at a university-based outpatient osteoporosis center in Belgium. Risk scores for the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation were calculated for each patient. The reference standard was osteoporosis at the femoral neck, defined as a T-score < or =-2.5 based on bone mineral density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis was present in 139 of 2539 (5.5%) women aged 45-64 years and 241 of 1496 (16.1%) women aged 65 years or older. The tools had similar overall discriminatory ability to identify women with osteoporosis [area under the ROC curve 0.750-0.768, P=0.23 for women aged 45-64 years; area under the ROC curve 0.745-0.762, P=0.06 for women aged 65 years or older (P>0.05 indicates no difference among tools)]. The likelihood ratios for the high-risk score categories ranged from 3.60 to 6.73 for the younger women and 3.45 to 6.99 for the older women when different score thresholds were set to maximize the performance of each tool in each age group. We conclude that the diagnostic accuracy of three osteoporosis risk assessment tools was similar in postmenopausal women aged 45-64 years and women aged 65 years or older. Use of structured risk assessment tools to identify women at high risk of osteoporosis in the early postmenopausal period warrants further study. Of the three tools evaluated, the OST is the simplest and has the best potential for use in clinical practice.