Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and other tests used to select women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment. In comparative meta-analyses, we found that the accuracy of OST was similar to other tests that are based on information from the medical history. By contrast, assessment by quantitative ultrasonography at the heel was more accurate than OST in discriminating between women with high and low BMD. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low.

Introduction

Numerous tests are suggested for triaging postmenopausal women for bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Previous studies suggest that OST, based on age and weight only, may be as accurate as more complex triage tests. We systematically compare the accuracy of OST and alternative triage tests in postmenopausal women.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists, and conference proceedings. Our main measure of accuracy was the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). We compared summary estimates of DOR (sDOR) for OST and alternative tests in pairwise meta-analyses by using the Moses–Littenberg approach.

Results

Summary estimates of DOR for OST and the clinical decision rules Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) did not differ significantly in white women (relative sDOR: 0.57–1.17, all p ≥ 0.11). By contrast, sDOR was higher for Stiffness Index assessed by calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography than for OST (relative sDOR: 1.9, p = 0.005). Studies were few in Asian and black women. Methodological quality, assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist, was generally low.

Conclusions

In white women, the accuracy of OST and alternative clinical decision rules was similar, whereas Stiffness Index was more accurate than OST. Low study quality renders transferability to clinical settings uncertain.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM (2002) Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review. JAMA 288:1889–1897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Black DM, Thompson DE, Bauer DC et al (2000) Fracture risk reduction with alendronate in women with osteoporosis: the Fracture Intervention Trial. FIT Research Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4118–4124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chesnut CH III, Skag A, Christiansen C et al (2004) Effects of oral ibandronate administered daily or intermittently on fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 19:1241–1249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. JAMA 282:637–645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK et al (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 282:1344–1352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD et al (2001) Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med 344:333–340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Reginster JY, Seeman E, De Vernejoul MC et al (2005) Strontium ranelate reduces the risk of nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: Treatment of Peripheral Osteoporosis (TROPOS) study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90:2816–2822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson HD, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al (2002) Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:529–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz EN, Steinberg DM (2006) Prescreening tools to determine who needs DXA. Curr Osteoporos Rep 4:148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J et al (2006) Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 332:1089–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Díez-Perez A, Marin F, Vila J et al (2003) Evaluation of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound in a primary care setting as a screening tool for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 6:237–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gudmundsdottir SL, Indridason OS, Franzson L et al (2005) Age-related decline in bone mass measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound in a population-based sample of both sexes:identification of useful ultrasound thresholds for osteoporosis screening. J Clin Densitom 8:80–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hodson J, Marsh J (2003) Quantitative ultrasound and risk factor enquiry as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparative study in primary care. BMJ 326:1250–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pacheco EM, Harrison EJ, Ward KA et al (2002) Detection of osteoporosis by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the calcaneus: is the WHO criterion applicable? Calcif Tissue Int 70:475–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pouilles JM, Tremollieres FA, Martinez S et al (2001) Ability of peripheral DXA measurements of the forearm to predict low axial bone mineral density at menopause. Osteoporos Int 12:71–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Boonen S, Nijs J, Borghs H et al (2005) Identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by calcaneal ultrasound, metacarpal digital X-ray radiogrammetry and phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry: a comparative study. Osteoporos Int 16:93–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakamoto T, Taguchi A, Ohtsuka M et al (2003) Dental panoramic radiograph as a tool to detect postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: untrained general dental practitioners’ diagnostic performance. Osteoporos Int 14:659–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Kreiger N et al (2000) Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ 162:1289–1294

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Koh LK, Sedrine WB, Torralba TP et al (2001) A simple tool to identify Asian women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 12:699–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J et al (1998) Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Manag Care 4:37–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rud B, Hilden J, Hyldstrup L et al (2007) Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 18:1177–1187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller PD, Njeh CF, Jankowski LG et al (2002) What are the standards by which bone mass measurement at peripheral skeletal sites should be used in the diagnosis of osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom 5([Suppl]):S39–S45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH et al (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1129–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walter SD (1985) Small sample estimation of log odds ratios from logistic regression and fourfold tables. Stat Med 4:437–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Armitage P, Berry G (1987) Statistical inference. In Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 93–140

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Littenberg B, Moses LE (1993) Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making 13:313–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18:2693–2708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2004) Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 23:1663–1682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nguyen TV, Center JR, Pocock NA et al (2004) Limited utility of clinical indices for the prediction of symptomatic fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 15:49–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richy F, Deceulaer F, Ethgen O et al (2004) Development and validation of the ORACLE score to predict risk of osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc 79:1402–1408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cho J-J (2005) Evaluation of two screening decision rules for osteoporosis of menopause or perimenopause women in Korea. Osteoporos Int 13(suppl 3):S68

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen ND, Pongchaiyakul C et al (2004) Development and validation of a new clinical risk index for prediction of osteoporosis in Thai women. J Med Assoc Thai 87:910–916

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wallace LS, Ballard JE, Holiday D et al (2004) Evaluation of decision rules for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal African-American women. J Natl Med Assoc 96:290–296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gambacciani M, Genazzani AR (2004) Osteoporosis screening: comparison of the heel ultrasound measurement to calculated risk assessment tools. Osteoporos Int 15(suppl 1):S36

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mossman EA, Grinnell NC, Cole L et al (2002) Quantitative ultrasound of the heel does not predict bone density at the femoral neck more accurately than simple clinical indices in postmenopausal Caucasian women. J Bone Miner Res 17:S422

    Google Scholar 

  40. Poriau S, Geusens P, Van den Bosch F et al (2004) Osteoporosis screening: comparison of heel ultrasound measurement to calculated risk assessment tools (OST). J Bone Miner Res 20(suppl 2):S378

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rud B, Abrahamsen B, Rejnmark L et al (2005) How does estrogen use in early postmenopausal women affect the diagnostic performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool and quantitative ultrasonography? Bone 36:S345

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cook RB, Collins D, Tucker J et al (2005) Comparison of questionnaire and quantitative ultrasound techniques as screening tools for DXA. Osteoporos Int 16:1565–1575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cadarette SM, McIsaac WJ, Hawker GA et al (2004) The validity of decision rules for selecting women with primary osteoporosis for bone mineral density testing. Osteoporos Int 15:361–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mossman EA, DeFrancisco T, Strot S et al (2004) OST versus weight alone in groups defined by clinical guidelines. J Clin Densitom 7:234

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rud B, Jensen JE, Mosekilde L et al (2005) Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 16:764–772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Choi H, Park YJ, Lee CM et al (2004) The validation and comparisional study of several risk indices for prediction of osteoporosis in peri- and postmenopausal Korean women. Osteoporos Int 15(suppl 1):S27

    Google Scholar 

  47. Fujiwara S, Masunari N, Suzuki G et al (2001) Performance of osteoporosis risk indices in a Japanese population. Curr Ther Res 62:586–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kung AW, Ho AY, Sedrine WB et al (2003) Comparison of a simple clinical risk index and quantitative bone ultrasound for identifying women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 14:716–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Taguchi A, Suei Y, Sanada M et al (2004) Validation of dental panoramic radiography measures for identifying postmenopausal women with spinal osteoporosis. Am J Roentgenol 183:1755–1760

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dargent-Molina P, Poitiers F, Breart G (2000) In elderly women weight is the best predictor of a very low bone mineral density: evidence from the EPIDOS study. Osteoporos Int 11:881–888

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor E (1993) Relation between body size and bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Epidemiol 138:160–169

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Wildner M, Peters A, Raghuvanshi VS et al (2003) Superiority of age and weight as variables in predicting osteoporosis in postmenopausal white women. Osteoporos Int 14:950–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pepe MS (2003) Combining binary tests and regression analysis. In The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35–65

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M et al (2006) Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 174:469–476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2004) Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 140:189–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gunaydin R, Kaya T, Goksel Karatepe A et al (2006) Performance of several risk indices for prediction of osteoporosis in peri- and postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 17([suppl 2]):S168

    Google Scholar 

  57. El maghraoui A, Habbassi A, Ghazi M et al (2006) Validation and comparative evaluation of four osteoporosis risk indices in Moroccan menopausal women. Arch Osteoporos 1:1–6. doi:10.1007/s11657-006-0001-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Harrison EJ, Adams JE (2006) Application of a triage approach to peripheral bone densitometry reduces the requirement for central DXA but is not cost effective. Calcif Tissue Int 79:199–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Martinez-Aguila D, Gomez-Vaquero C, Rozadilla A et al (2007) Decision rules for selecting women for bone mineral density testing: application in postmenopausal women referred to a bone densitometry unit. J Rheumatol 34:1307–1312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Richy F, Gourlay M, Ross PD et al (2004) Validation and comparative evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) in a Caucasian population from Belgium. QJM 97:39–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Geusens P, Hochberg MC, van der Voort DJ et al (2002) Performance of risk indices for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal women. Mayo Clin Proc 77:629–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Marin F, Lopez-Bastida J, Diez-Perez A et al (2004) 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. Calcif Tissue Int 74:277–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sim MF, Stone M, Johansen A et al (2000) Cost effectiveness analysis of BMD referral for DXA using ultrasound as a selective pre-screen in a group of women with low trauma Colles’ fractures. Technol Health Care 8:277–284

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Richy F, Ethgen O, Bruyere O et al (2004) Primary prevention of osteoporosis: mass screening scenario or prescreening with questionnaires? An economic perspective. J Bone Miner Res 19:1955–1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A et al (2008) FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women in the UK. Osteoporos Int 19:385–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS et al (2007) Zolendronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med 357:1799–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. De Laet C, Kanis JA, Oden A et al (2005) Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:1330–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 49:7–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Klemetti E, Kolmakov S, Kroger H (1994) Pantomography in assessment of the osteoporosis risk group. Scand J Dent Res 102:68–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the authors of studies included in the review who replied to our request for additional information.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Rud.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 402 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rud, B., Hilden, J., Hyldstrup, L. et al. The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy. Osteoporos Int 20, 599–607 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0713-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0713-0

Keywords

Navigation