Osteoporosis International

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 120–126 | Cite as

Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: Selection by body composition

  • K. Michaëlsson
  • R. Bergström
  • H. Mallmin
  • L. Holmberg
  • A. Wolk
  • S. Ljunghall
Original Article


There is a great need for simple means of identifying persons at low risk of developing osteoporosis, in order to exclude them from screening with bone mineral measurements, since this procedure is too expensive and time-consuming for general use in the unselected population. We have determined the relationships between body measure (weight, height, body mass index, lean tissue mass, fat mass, waist-to-hip ratio) and bone mineral density (BMD) in 175 women of ages 28–74 years in a cross-sectional study in a county in central Sweden. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was performed at three sites: total body, L2-4 region of lumbar spine, and neck region of the proximal femur. Using multiple linear regression models, the relationship between the dependent variable, BMD, and each of the body measures was determined, with adjustment for confounding factors. Weight alone, in a multivariate model, explained 28%, 21% and 15% of the variance in BMD of total body, at the lumbar spine and at the femoral neck according to these models. The WHO definition of osteopenia was used to dichotomize BMD, which made it possible, in multivariate logistic regression models, to estimate the risk of osteopenia with different body measures categorized into tertiles. Weight of over 71 kg was associated with a very low risk of being osteopenic compared with women weighing less than 64 kg, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00–0.09), 0.06 (CI 0.02–0.22) and 0.13 (CI 0.04–0.42) for osteopenia of total body, lumbar spine and femoral neck, respectively. Furthermore a sensitivity/specificity analysis revealed that, in this population, a woman weighing over 70 kg is not likely to have osteoporosis. Test specifics of a weight under 70 kg for osteoporosis (BMD less than 2.5 SD compared with normal young women) of femoral neck among the postmenopausal women showed a sensitivity of 0.94, a specificity of 0.36, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.21, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.97. Thus, exclusion of the 33% of women with the highest weight meant only that 3% of osteoporotic cases were missed. The corresponding figures for lumbar spine were sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.38, PPV 0.33, and NPV 0.91. All women who were defined as being osteoporotic of total body weighed under 62 kg. When the intention was to identify those with osteopenia of total body among the postmenopausal women we attained a sensitivity of 0.92 and a NPV of 0.91 for a weight under 70 kg, whereas we found that weight could not be used as an exclusion criterion for osteopenia of femoral neck and lumbar spine. Our data thus indicate that weight could be used to exclude women from a screening program for postmenopausal osteoporosis.


Body composition Bone mineral density Osteopenia Osteoporosis Screening Weight 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ribot C, Tremollieres F, Pouilles J-M, Bonneu M, Germain F, Louvet J-P. Obesity and postmenopausal bone loss: the influence of obesity on vertebral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women. Bone 1988;8:327–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cauley JA, Gutai JP, Kuller LH, Scott J, Nevitt MC. Black-white differences in serum sex hormones and bone mineral density. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:1035–46.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell HS, Epstein S, Greene A, et al. Evidence for alteration of the vitamin D-endocrine system in obese subjects. J Clin Invest 1985;76:370–3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutin B, Kasper MJ. Can vigorous exercise play a role in osteoporosis prevention? A review. Osteoporosis Int 1992;2:55–69.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tylavsky FA, Bortz AD, Hancock RL, Anderson JJB. Familial resemblance of radial bone mass between premenopausal mothers and their college-age daughters. Calcif Tissue Int 1989;45:265–72.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mazess RB, Peppier WW, Chestnut CH, Nelp WB, Cohn SH, Zansi I. Total body mineral and lean body mass by dual photon absorptiometry: comparison with total body calcium by neutron activation analysis. Calcif Tissue Int 1993;33:361–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:1137–41.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karlsson MK, Gärdsell P, Johnell O, Nilsson BE, Åkesson K, Obrant KJ. Bone mineral normative data in Malm ö, Sweden: comparison with reference data and hip fracture incidence in other ethnic groups. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64:168–72.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johansson AG, Forslund A, Sjödin A, Mallmin H, Hambraeus L, Ljunghall S. Determination of body composition: a comparison of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and hydrodensitometry. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;57:323–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson-Hughes B, Shipp C, Sadowski L, Dallal G. Bone density of the radius, spine and hip in relation to percent of ideal body weight in postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 1987;40:310–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sowers MR, Kshirsagar A, Crutchfield MM, Updike S. Joint influence of fat and lean body composition compartments on femoral bone mineral density in premenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:257–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindsay R, Cosman F, Herrington BS, Himmelstein S. Bone mass and body composition in normal women. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:55–63.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor E. Relation between body size and bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:160–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ribot C, Pouilles JM, Bonneu M, Tremollieres F. Assessment of the risk of post-menopausal osteoporosis using clinical factors. Clin Endocrinol 1992;36:225–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slemenda CW. Risk factors for low bone mass: clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:741–2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Block G. A review of validations of dietary assessment methods. Am J Epidemiol 1982;115:492–505.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maggi S, Kelsey JL, Litvak J, Heyse SP. Incidence of hip fractures in the elderly: a cross-national analysis. Osteoporosis Int 1991;1:232–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuskowska-Wolk A, Rössner S. Prevalence of obesity in Sweden: cross-sectional study of a representative adult population. J Intern Med 1990;227:241–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michaëlsson K, Holmberg L, Mallmin H, et al. Diet and hip fracture risk: results from a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:771–82.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelson ME, Fiatarone MA, Morganti CM, Trice I, Greenberg RA, Evans WJ. Effects of high intensity strength training on multiple risk factors for osteoporotic fractures: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1994;272:1909–14.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollitzer WA, Anderson JJB, Ethnic and genetic differences in bone mass: a review with a hereditary vs environmental perspective. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;50:1244–59.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen LB, Quaade F, Sørensen OH. Bone loss accompanying voluntary weight loss in obese humans. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:459–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Michaëlsson
    • 5
  • R. Bergström
    • 1
  • H. Mallmin
    • 2
  • L. Holmberg
    • 3
  • A. Wolk
    • 3
  • S. Ljunghall
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUppsala UniversityUppsala
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Cancer EpidemiologyUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.Department of OrthopaedicsCentral HospitalVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations