Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 167–179 | Cite as

The Risk-Stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE): A Randomized Prospective Population-Based Study. Design and Baseline Characteristics

  • Katrine Hass RubinEmail author
  • Teresa Holmberg
  • Mette Juel Rothmann
  • Mikkel Høiberg
  • Reinhard Barkmann
  • Jeppe Gram
  • Anne Pernille Hermann
  • Mickael Bech
  • Ole Rasmussen
  • Claus C. Glüer
  • Kim Brixen
Original Research


The risk-stratified osteoporosis strategy evaluation study (ROSE) is a randomized prospective population-based study investigating the effectiveness of a two-step screening program for osteoporosis in women. This paper reports the study design and baseline characteristics of the study population. 35,000 women aged 65–80 years were selected at random from the population in the Region of Southern Denmark and—before inclusion—randomized to either a screening group or a control group. As first step, a self-administered questionnaire regarding risk factors for osteoporosis based on FRAX® was issued to both groups. As second step, subjects in the screening group with a 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures ≥15 % were offered a DXA scan. Patients diagnosed with osteoporosis from the DXA scan were advised to see their GP and discuss pharmaceutical treatment according to Danish National guidelines. The primary outcome is incident clinical fractures as evaluated through annual follow-up using the Danish National Patient Registry. The secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness, participation rate, and patient preferences. 20,904 (60 %) women participated and included in the baseline analyses (10,411 in screening and 10,949 in control group). The mean age was 71 years. As expected by randomization, the screening and control groups had similar baseline characteristics. Screening for osteoporosis is at present not evidence based according to the WHO screening criteria. The ROSE study is expected to provide knowledge of the effectiveness of a screening strategy that may be implemented in health care systems to prevent fractures.


Risk factors Fracture prevention Osteoporosis Screening Women 



Participants in the Rose study and technical staff in the four involved hospitals: Odense University Hospital, Odense; Hospital of Funen, Nyborg; Hospital of Southwest Denmark, Esbjerg, and Sygehus Lillebælt Hospital, Kolding, Denmark.

Conflict of interest

Katrine Hass Rubin, Teresa Holmberg, Mikkel Høiberg, Reinhard Barkmann, Jeppe Gram, Mickael Bech, Ole Rasmussen, Claus C Glüer have no conflict of interest. Mette Juel Rothmann: Amgen (Financial support for attending congress) and Eli Lilly (Consultation and advisory board). Anne Pernille Hermann: Eli Lilly, MSD, and Amgen (Advisory Board) and Amgen, Lilly, Genzyme (Speakers Bureau). Kim Brixen: Consulting (study design) MSD, Investigator MSD, Amgen, Novartis, NPS, Speakers bureau Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Grants MSD.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

The ROSE study is performed according to the declaration of Helsinki II and is approved by the Regional Scientific Ethical Committee for Southern Denmark ( S-20090127) and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The study is furthermore registered in (NCT01388244). Women invited for DXA receive oral and written information before signing informed consent.


  1. 1.
    Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S3–S7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vestergaard P, Lindholm J, Jorgensen JO et al (2002) Increased risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol 146:51–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brenneman SK, Barrett-Connor E, Sajjan S, Markson LE, Siris ES (2006) Impact of recent fracture on health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 21:809–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blake GM, Fogelman I (2007) Role of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 10:102–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rossouw JE (2005) Coronary heart disease in menopausal women: implications of primary and secondary prevention trials of hormones. Maturitas 51:51–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wells GA, Cranney A, Peterson J, Boucher M, Shea B, Robinson V, Coyle D, Tugwell P (2008) Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 23:CD001155Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH et al (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. JAMA 282:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meunier PJ, Roux C, Seeman E et al (2004) The effects of strontium ranelate on the risk of vertebral fracture in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 350:459–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neer RM, Arnaud CD, Zanchetta JR et al (2001) Effect of parathyroid hormone (1-34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 344:1434–1441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R et al (2007) Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 356:1809–1822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cummings SR, San MJ, McClung MR et al (2009) Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 361:756–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen PM, Brixen K, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS (2005) Cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Danish women. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 96:387–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsson B, Strom O, Eisman JA, Papaioannou A, Siris ES, Tosteson A, Kanis JA (2011) Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22:967–982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dansk Knoglemedicinsk S, Danish Bonemedical S (2009) Vejledning til udredning og behandling of Osteoporose. [Instrutions to diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubin KH, Abrahamsen B, Hermann AP, Bech M, Gram J, Brixen K (2011) Prevalence of risk factors for fractures and use of DXA scanning in Danish women. A regional population-based study. Osteoporos Int 22:1401–1409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2005) Osteoporosis is markedly underdiagnosed: a nationwide study from Denmark. Osteoporos Int 16:134–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2011) Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 154:356–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Osteoporosis F (2013) Clinicianïs guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson JM, Jungner YG (1968) Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 65:281–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leslie WD, Metge C, Ward L (2003) Contribution of clinical risk factors to bone density-based absolute fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 14:334–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin KH, Friis-Holmberg T, Hermann AP, Abrahamsen B, Brixen K (2013) Risk assessment tools to identify women with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: complexity or simplicity? A systematic review. J Bone Miner Res 28:1701–1717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O et al (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 18:1033–1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C (2009) Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. BMJ 339:b4229CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2008) Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 19:1431–1444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubin KH, Abrahamsen B, Hermann AP, Bech M, Gram J, Brixen K (2011) Fracture risk assessed by Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) compared with fracture risk derived from population fracture rates. Scand J Public Health 39:312–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dachverband Osteologie (2011) DVO Guideline 2009 for prevention, diagnosis and Therapy of osteoporosis in adults. Osteologie 20:55–74Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gluer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM et al (2004) Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS Study. J Bone Miner Res 19:782–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frost M, Wraae K, Abrahamsen B, Hoiberg M, Hagen C, Andersen M, Brixen K (2012) Osteoporosis and vertebral fractures in men aged 60–74 years. Age Ageing 41:171–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Andersen TF, Madsen M, Jorgensen J, Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH (1999) The Danish National Hospital Discharge Register. A valuable source of data for modern health science. Dan Med Bull 46:263–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kildemoes HW, Sorensen HT, Hallas J (2011) The Danish National Prescription Registry. Scand J Public Health 39:38–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rothmann MJ, Huniche L, Ammentorp J, Barkmann R, Gluer CC, Hermann AP (2014) Women’s perspectives and experiences on screening for osteoporosis (Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, ROSE). Arch Osteoporos 9:192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shepstone L, Fordham R, Lenaghan E et al (2012) A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening older women for the prevention of fractures: rationale, design and methods for the SCOOP study. Osteoporos Int 23:2507–2515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Azagra R, Roca G, Encabo G et al (2011) Prediction of absolute risk of fragility fracture at 10 years in a Spanish population: validation of the WHO FRAX tool in Spain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:30CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bolland MJ, Siu AT, Mason BH, Horne AM, Ames RW, Grey AB, Gamble GD, Reid IR (2011) Evaluation of the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculators in older women. J Bone Miner Res 26:420–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cummins NM, Poku EK, Towler MR, O’Driscoll OM, Ralston SH (2011) Clinical risk factors for osteoporosis in Ireland and the UK: a comparison of FRAX and QFractureScores. Calcif Tissue Int 89:172–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sambrook PN, Flahive J, Hooven FH et al (2011) Predicting fractures in an international cohort using risk factor algorithms without BMD. J Bone Miner Res 26:2770–2777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandhu SK, Nguyen ND, Center JR, Pocock NA, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2010) Prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX algorithm and Garvan nomogram. Osteoporos Int 21:863–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tamaki J, Iki M, Kadowaki E, Sato Y, Kajita E, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H (2011) Fracture risk prediction using FRAX(R): a 10-year follow-up survey of the Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study. Osteoporos Int 22:3037–3045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tremollieres FA, Pouilles JM, Drewniak N, Laparra J, Ribot CA, Dargent-Molina P (2010) Fracture risk prediction using BMD and clinical risk factors in early postmenopausal women: sensitivity of the WHO FRAX tool. J Bone Miner Res 25:1002–1009CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barr RJ, Stewart A, Torgerson DJ, Seymour DG, Reid DM (2005) Screening elderly women for risk of future fractures–participation rates and impact on incidence of falls and fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 76:243–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schneider DL, Worley K, Beard MK, Iannini M, Ko M, McCallum J, Pulicharam R, Steinbuch M (2010) The primary care osteoporosis risk of fracture screening (POROS) study: design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials 31:336–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lacroix AZ, Buist DS, Brenneman SK, Abbott TA III (2005) Evaluation of three population-based strategies for fracture prevention: results of the osteoporosis population-based risk assessment (OPRA) trial. Med Care 43:293–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dargent-Molina P, Piault S, Breart G (2003) A comparison of different screening strategies to identify elderly women at high risk of hip fracture: results from the EPIDOS prospective study. Osteoporos Int 14:969–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    World Health O (2011) WHO Fractures risk assessment tool.
  47. 47.
    Ensrud KE, Lui LY, Taylor BC, Schousboe JT, Donaldson MG, Fink HA, Cauley JA, Hillier TA, Browner WS, Cummings SR (2009) A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch Intern Med 169:2087–2094CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrine Hass Rubin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Teresa Holmberg
    • 2
  • Mette Juel Rothmann
    • 3
    • 9
  • Mikkel Høiberg
    • 4
  • Reinhard Barkmann
    • 5
  • Jeppe Gram
    • 6
  • Anne Pernille Hermann
    • 3
  • Mickael Bech
    • 7
  • Ole Rasmussen
    • 8
  • Claus C. Glüer
    • 5
  • Kim Brixen
    • 3
    • 9
  1. 1.Odense Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Institute of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense CDenmark
  2. 2.National Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Medical EndocrinologyOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Medical EndocrinologyOslo University Hospital AkerOsloNorway
  5. 5.Section Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  6. 6.Department of EndocrinologyHospital of Southwest DenmarkEsbjergDenmark
  7. 7.Department of Business and Economics, COHEREUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  8. 8.Department of Internal MedicineSygehus LillebæltKoldingDenmark
  9. 9.Institute of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations