Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 277–283 | Cite as

Bone Mineral Density Referral for Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Using Quantitative Ultrasound as a Prescreening Tool in Postmenopausal Women from the General Population: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

  • F. Marín
  • J. López–Bastida
  • A. Díez–Pérez
  • J.A. Sacristán
  • ECOSAP DXA Substudy Group Investigators


The aim of our study was to assess, from the perspective of the National Health Services in Spain, the cost-effectiveness of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) as a prescreen referral method for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in postmenopausal women of the general population. Using femoral neck DXA and heel QUS. We evaluated 267 consecutive postmenopausal women 65 years and older and attending primary care physician offices for any medical reason. Subjects were classified as osteoporotic or nonosteoporotic (normal or osteopenic) using the WHO definition for DXA. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of the referral decisions based on the QUS measurement. Local costs were estimated from health services and actual resource used. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the expected cost per true positive osteoporotic case detected. Baseline prevalence of osteoporosis evaluated by DXA was 55.8%. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of osteoporosis by QUS using the optimal cutoff thresholds for the estimated heel BMD T-score were 97% and 94%, respectively. The average cost per osteoporotic case detected based on DXA measurement alone was € 23.85. The average cost per osteoporotic case detected using QUS as a prescreen was €22.00. The incremental cost-effectiveness of DXA versus QUS was €114.00 per true positive case detected. Our results suggest that screening for osteoporosis with QUS while applying strict cufoff values in postmenopausal women of the general population is not substantially more cost-effective than DXA alone for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. However, the screening strategy with QUS may be an option in those circumstances where the diagnosis of osteoporosis is deficient because of the difficulty in accessing DXA equipment.


Osteoporosis Screening Postmenopausal Densitometry Cost-effectiveness 


  1. 1.
    NIH Consensus Development Panel2001Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy.JAMA285785795PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis, JA, Melton, LJ, Christiansen, C, Johnston, CC, Khaltaev, N 1994The diagnosis of Osteoporosis.J Bone Miner Res911141137Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    lInternational Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF)2001Osteoporosis in the European Community: a call to action. An audit of policy development since 1998.IOFBrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lippuner, K, von Overbeck, J, Perrelet, R, Bosshard, H, Jaeger, P 1997Incidence and direct medical costs of hospitalisation due to osteoporotic fractures in Switzerland.Osteoporos Int7414425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Royal Collegue of Physicians of UK1999Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.Royal Collegue of Physicians of UKLondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eddy, DM, Johnston Jr, CC, Cummings, SR, Dawson–Hughes, B, Lindsay, R, Melton III, LJ, Slemenda, CW 1998Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis.Osteoporos Int8S7S80Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings, SR, Bates, D, Black, DM 2002Clinical use of bone densitometry. Scientific review.JAMA28818891897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force2002Screening for Osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale.Ann Intern Med137526528Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Compston, JE, Cooper, C, Kanis, JA 1995Bone densitometry in clinical practice.Br Med J31015071510Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aragonès, R Orozco, P Grupo de Osteoporosis de la Societat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària2002Abordaje de la Osteoporosis en la atención primaria en España (estudio ABOPAP-2000).At Primaria6350356Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gluer CC for the International Quantitative Ultrasound Consensus Group1997Quantitative ultrasound techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis: expert agreement on current status.J Bone Miner Res1212801288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bauer, DC 1999

    Clinical applications of quantitative ultrasound.

    Njeh, CFHans, DFuerst, TGlüer, CCGenant, HK eds. Quantitative ultrasound: assessment of Osteoporosis and bone status.Martin Dunitz LtdLondon283
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langton, CM, Ballard, PA, Langton, DK, Purdie, DW 1997Maximising the cost effectiveness of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective population pre-screen.Technol Health Care5235241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langton, CM, Langton, DK, Beardsworth, SA 1999Comparison of accuracy and cost effectiveness of clinical criteria and BUA for referral for BMD assessment by DXA in Osteoporosis and osteopenic perimenopausal subjects.Technol Health Care7319330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lippuner, K, Fuchs, G, Ruetsche, AG, Perrelet, R, Casez, JP, Neto, I 2000How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine and hip?. A cost-effectiveness analysis.J Clin Densitom3241249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Díez–Pérez, A, Marín, F, Vila, J, Abizanda, M, Cervera, A, Carbonell, C, Alcolea, RM, Cama, A, Rama, T, Galindo, E, Olmos, C 2003Evaluation of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound in a primary care setting as a screening tool for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.J Clin Densitom6237245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaeschke, R, Guyatt, G, Lijmer, J 2002

    Diagnostic tests.

    Guyatt, GRennie, DHayward, R eds. User’s Guide to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice.JAMA & Archives Journals. AMA PressChicago187
    Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drummond, MF, O’Brien, B, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW 1997Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd ed.Oxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sim, MFV, Stone, M, Johansen, A, Evans, W 2000Cost-effectiveness analysis of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective pre-screening in a group of women with low trauma Colles’ fractures.Technol Health Care8277284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, PD, Siris, ES, Barrett–Connor, E, Faulkner, KG, Wehren, LE, Abbott, TA, Chen, YT, Berger, ML, Santora, AC, Sherwood, LM 2002Prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal white women with peripheral bone densitometry: evidence from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment.J Bone Miner Res1722222230PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Marín
    • 1
  • J. López–Bastida
    • 2
  • A. Díez–Pérez
    • 3
    • 4
  • J.A. Sacristán
    • 1
  • ECOSAP DXA Substudy Group Investigators
  1. 1.Department of Medical ResearchEli Lilly and Company, MadridSpain
  2. 2.Servicio de Evaluación y Planificación, Servicio Canario de Salud, Canary IslandsSpain
  3. 3.Unidad de Investigación de Fisiopatología Ósea y ArticularHospital Universitario del Mar, Universitat Autonoma, BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica (IMIM), BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations