Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older
- 142 Downloads
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 ≥AUC values for the ORAI, SCORE, age or prior fracture. Using cut points from the development papers, the risk tools had sensitivities ≥85% and specificities ≤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.
KeywordsBone density Female Mass screening Osteoporosis Postmenopause Risk assessment
We acknowledge Philip D. Sloane, MD, MPH for his comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
The project described was funded by Grant Number K23RR024685 from the National Center for Research Resources and by the University of North Carolina Translational Science Program. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) is supported by the National Institutes of Health (Public Health Service research grants AG05407, AR35582, AG05394, AR35584, AR35583, R01 AG005407, R01 AG027576-22, 2 R01 AG005394-22A1, and 2 R01 AG027574-22A1). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the funding agencies.
Role of the sponsor
The funding bodies had no role in data extraction and analyses, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
- 3.Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J, Melton M, Stine R, Byrnes C (1998) Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Man Care 4:37–48Google Scholar
- 13.World Health Organization. Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk and its role in screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO Technical report series no. 843. Geneva: World Health Organization 1994Google Scholar
- 15.Hologic, Inc. Bone mineral density international normative data tables for men and women, report from manufacturer modified 11/4/91 and 2/1/97Google Scholar
- 18.Kanis J, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey E, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, 3rd, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.USPSTF (2002) Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:526–528Google Scholar
- 20.National Osteoporosis Foundation. Physician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. 1999, updated in 2003. http://www.nof.org/. Accessed November 10, 2007.
- 21.StataCorp. Confidence intervals for means, proportions, and counts. In: Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0 User’s Guide, Volume 1. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation;2005Google Scholar
- 23.Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J (2002) Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Drummond R (eds) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago, pp 121–139Google Scholar
- 25.SAS Institute Inc (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. In:Google Scholar
- 26.StataCorp (2005). Stata Statistical Software: Release SE 9.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. In:Google Scholar
- 27.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction: datasets and Stata programs used in the text. http://www.fhcrc.org/science/labs/pepe/book/#progs, accessed November 10, 2007.
- 31.Kanis J, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, DeLaet C, Brown J, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Christiansen C, Cummings S, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Gluer C, Goltzman D, Hans D, Krieg M-A, LaCroix A, McCloskey E, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, 3rd, Pols H, Reeve J, Sanders K, Schott A, Silman A, Torgerson D, van Staa T, Watts N, Yoshimura N (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int:Feb 24; [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 32.Dawson-Hughes, B. Development of the WHO fracture risk assessment paradigm. National Osteoporosis Foundation 7th International Symposium on Osteoporosis: Translating Research into Clinical Practice, Washington, DC, April 18–22, 2007. In:Google Scholar
- 33.Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement Osteoporosis Work Group. Osteoporosis Physician Performance Measurement Set. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4837.html. October 2006. Accessed November 10, 2007.
- 34.International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Medicare Finalizes Cuts to DXA and VFA. http://www.iscd.org/Visitors/positions/ProposedCutstoDXA.cfm, accessed November 10, 2007.