Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Epidemiology and Pathophysiology (J Cauley and B Dawson-Hughes, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the Surgeon General Executive Summary. Rockville, MD: 2004.

  2. Consensus development conference: prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med. 1991;90(1):107–10.

  3. Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):356–64.

  4. Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Delzell ES, Randall S, et al. 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. J Bone Miner Res. 2014.

  5. National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation, 2014.

  6. Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, Lim YW, Gellad WF, Booth MJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(10):711–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, Camacho PM, Greenspan SL, Harris ST, Hodgson SF, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract. 2010;16 Suppl 3:1–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM, McIsaac WJ, Joseph L, Brown JP, et al. Evaluation of decision rules for referring women for bone densitometry by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. JAMA. 2001;286(1):57–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Kreiger N, McIsaac WJ, Darlington GA, Tu JV. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ. 2000;162(9):1289–94.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cadarette SM, McIsaac WJ, Hawker GA, Jaakkimainen L, Culbert A, Zarifa G, et al. The validity of decision rules for selecting women with primary osteoporosis for bone mineral density testing. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(5):361–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM. Validation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) for patient selection for bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(1):85–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brenneman SK, Lacroix AZ, Buist DS, Chen YT, Abbott 3rd TA. Evaluation of decision rules to identify postmenopausal women for intervention related to osteoporosis. Dis Manag. 2003;6(3):159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Black DM, Steinbuch M, Palermo L, Dargent-Molina P, Lindsay R, Hoseyni MS, et al. An assessment tool for predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(7):519–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bolland MJ, Siu AT, Mason BH, Horne AM, Ames RW, Grey AB, et al. Evaluation of the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculators in older women. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26(2):420–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brennan SL, Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al. FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(1):61–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ettinger B, Hillier TA, Pressman A, Che M, Hanley DA. Simple computer model for calculating and reporting 5-year osteoporotic fracture risk in postmenopausal women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005;14(2):159–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. FitzGerald G, Compston JE, Chapurlat RD, Pfeilschifter J, Cooper C, Hosmer Jr DW, et al. Empirically based composite fracture prediction model from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women (GLOW). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(3):817–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gourlay ML, Miller WC, Richy F, Garrett JM, Hanson LC, Reginster JY. Performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in postmenopausal women aged 45–64 years. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(8):921–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hawker G, Mendel A, Lam MA, Akhavan PS, Cancino-Romero J, Waugh E, et al. A clinical decision rule to enhance targeted bone mineral density testing in healthy mid-life women. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(7):1931–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henry MJ, Pasco JA, Merriman EN, Zhang Y, Sanders KM, Kotowicz MA, et al. Fracture risk score and absolute risk of fracture. Radiology. 2011;259(2):495–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang X, Westermann LB, Galleo GV, Demko J, Marakovits KA, Schnatz PF. Age as a predictor of osteoporotic fracture compared with current risk-prediction models. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1040–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Langsetmo L, Morin S, Kovacs CS, Kreiger N, Josse R, Adachi JD, et al. Determining whether women with osteopenic bone mineral density have low, moderate, or high clinical fracture risk. Menopause. 2010;17(5):1010–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Wu X, Manitoba Bone Density P. Competing mortality and fracture risk assessment. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(2):681–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leslie WD, Brennan SL, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al. Direct comparison of eight national FRAX(R) tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leslie WD, Morin S, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al. Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):75–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al. High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):391–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Langsetmo L, Berger C, Goltzman D, Hanley DA, et al. Construction of a FRAX(R) model for the assessment of fracture probability in Canada and implications for treatment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(3):817–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA. Spine-hip discordance and fracture risk assessment: a physician-friendly FRAX enhancement. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(3):839–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leslie WD, Lix LM. Manitoba Bone Density P. Absolute fracture risk assessment using lumbar spine and femoral neck bone density measurements: derivation and validation of a hybrid system. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26(3):460–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leslie WD, Berger C, Langsetmo L, Lix LM, Adachi JD, Hanley DA, et al. Construction and validation of a simplified fracture risk assessment tool for Canadian women and men: results from the CaMos and Manitoba cohorts. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1873–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leslie WD, Kovacs CS, Olszynski WP, Towheed T, Kaiser SM, Prior JC, et al. Spine-hip T-score difference predicts major osteoporotic fracture risk independent of FRAX((R)): a population-based report from CAMOS. J Clin Densitom. 2011;14(3):286–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leslie WD, Morin S. Fracture burden in relation to low bone mineral density and FRAX((R)) probability. J Clin Densitom. 2011;14(3):279–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, et al. Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(11):2350–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Manitoba Bone Density P. Simplified 10-year absolute fracture risk assessment: a comparison of men and women. J Clin Densitom. 2010;13(2):141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Lix LM, Manitoba Bone Density P. Simplified system for absolute fracture risk assessment: clinical validation in Canadian women. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(2):353–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leslie WD, Metge C, Ward L. Contribution of clinical risk factors to bone density-based absolute fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(4):334–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lo JC, Pressman AR, Chandra M, Ettinger B. Fracture risk tool validation in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(3):188–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Melton 3rd LJ, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S, Oberg AL, Riggs BL. Evaluation of a prediction model for long-term fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(4):551–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pang WY, Inderjeeth CA. FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(3):442–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pluskiewicz W, Drozdzowska B, Adamczyk P. Ten-year fracture risk in the assessment of osteoporosis management efficacy in postmenopausal women: a pilot study. Climacteric. 2013;16(1):117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roux S, Cabana F, Carrier N, Beaulieu M, April PM, Beaulieu MC, et al. The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) underestimates incident and recurrent fractures in consecutive patients with fragility fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(7):2400–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wei GS, Jackson JL. Postmenopausal bone density referral decision rules: correlation with clinical fractures. Mil Med. 2004;169(12):1000–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gourlay ML, Powers JM, Lui LY, Ensrud KE, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research G. Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(8):1175–83.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mauck KF, Cuddihy MT, Atkinson EJ, Melton 3rd LJ. Use of clinical prediction rules in detecting osteoporosis in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(5):530–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ungar WJ, Josse R, Lee S, Ryan N, Adachi R, Hanley D, et al. The Canadian SCORE questionnaire: optimizing the use of technology for low bone density assessment. Simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimate. J Clin Densitom. 2000;3(3):269–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Von Muhlen D, Visby Lunde A, Barrett-Connor E, Bettencourt R. Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in older Caucasian women: the Rancho Bernardo study. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(1):79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wallace LS, Ballard JE, Holiday D, Turner LW, Keenum AJ, Pearman CM. Evaluation of decision rules for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal African-American women. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004;96(3):290–6.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, et al. Selection of women aged 50–64 yr for bone density measurement. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16(4):570–8. These studies with large sample sizes evaluated FRAX in women aged 50–64 years.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J, Melton M, Stine R, Byrnes C. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4(1):37–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. lyCass AR, Shepherd AJ, Carlson CA. Osteoporosis risk assessment and ethnicity: validation and comparison of 2 clinical risk stratification instruments. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):630–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Crandall CJ, Larson J, Gourlay ML, Donaldson MG, LaCroix A, Cauley JA, et al. 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. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(7):1661–6. These studies with large sample sizes evaluated FRAX in women aged 50–64 years.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Crandall CJ, Larson JC, Watts NB, Gourlay ML, Donaldson MG, LaCroix A, et al. Comparison of fracture risk prediction by the US Preventive Services Task Force strategy and two alternative strategies in women 50–64 years old in the Women’s Health Initiative. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(12):4514–22. These studies with large sample sizes evaluated FRAX in women aged 50–64 years.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ensrud KE, Lui LY, Taylor BC, Schousboe JT, Donaldson MG, Fink HA, et al. A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2087–94.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fraser LA, Langsetmo L, Berger C, Ioannidis G, Goltzman D, Adachi JD, et al. Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX(R) tool: a population-based report from CaMos. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(3):829–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Girman CJ, Chandler JM, Zimmerman SI, Martin AR, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, et al. Prediction of fracture in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(8):1341–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, et al. A comparative study of using non-hip bone density inputs with FRAX(R). Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(3):853–60. These studies with large sample sizes evaluated FRAX in women aged 50–64 years.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Premaor M, Parker RA, Cummings S, Ensrud K, Cauley JA, Lui LY, et al. Predictive value of FRAX for fracture in obese older women. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28(1):188–95.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pressman AR, Lo JC, Chandra M, Ettinger B. Methods for assessing fracture risk prediction models: experience with FRAX in a large integrated health care delivery system. J Clin Densitom. 2011;14(4):407–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Langsetmo L, Nguyen TV, Nguyen ND, Kovacs CS, Prior JC, Center JR, et al. Independent external validation of nomograms for predicting risk of low-trauma fracture and hip fracture. CMAJ. 2011;183(2):E107–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rubin KH, Friis-Holmberg T, Hermann AP, Abrahamsen B, Brixen K. Risk assessment tools to identify women with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: complexity or simplicity? A systematic review. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28(8):1701–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rud B, Hilden J, Hyldstrup L, Hrobjartsson A. Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(9):1177–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author of this paper declares no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA Medicine/GIM, 911 Broxton Ave., 1st floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA

    Carolyn J. Crandall

Authors
  1. Carolyn J. Crandall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn J. Crandall.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crandall, C.J. Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review. Curr Osteoporos Rep 13, 287–301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-015-0282-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-015-0282-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation