Abstract
Summary
The osteoporosis self-assessment tool was more accurate than hand grip strength, gait speed, and calf circumference in predicting osteoporosis in women. Hand grip strength was more accurate than the osteoporosis self-assessment tool, gait speed, and calf circumference in predicting osteoporosis in men.
Purpose
The osteoporosis self-assessment tool, functional assessment, and anthropometric measurement are different techniques to identify those at risk of osteoporosis. This study aimed to compare the performance of these techniques in predicting osteoporosis.
Methods
In this cross-sectional, hospital-based study including 1109 participants, the bone mineral density of the spine and hips was evaluated using the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool was used as a simple clinical risk assessment tool to screen for osteoporosis. Gait speed and hand grip strength were used as functional assessments to predict osteoporosis. Calf circumference was used as an anthropometric measurement to predict osteoporosis risk.
Results
In women, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool was better than hand grip strength, gait speed, and calf circumference in predicting osteoporosis. In contrast, in men, hand grip strength was better than the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool, gait speed, and calf circumference.
Conclusion
The application of simple, cost-effective techniques for the identification of osteoporosis risk will be beneficial for both screening and patient care when dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is not available. We suggest that the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool can be used to identify the risk of osteoporosis in women and hand grip strength measurement can be used for men.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Date availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Edwards MH, Dennison EM, Aihie Sayer A, Fielding R, Cooper C (2015) Osteoporosis and sarcopenia in older age. Bone 80:126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.1004.1016
Tarantino U, Piccirilli E, Fantini M, Baldi J, Gasbarra E, Bei R (2015) Sarcopenia and fragility fractures: molecular and clinical evidence of the bone-muscle interaction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:429–437. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00648
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.061113
Blain H, Vuillemin A, Teissier A, Hanesse B, Guillemin F, Jeandel C (2001) Influence of muscle strength and body weight and composition on regional bone mineral density in healthy women aged 60 years and over. Gerontology 47:207–212. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052800
Sirola J, Tuppurainen M, Honkanen R, Jurvelin JS, Kroger H (2005) Associations between grip strength change and axial postmenopausal bone loss--a 10-year population-based follow-up study. Osteoporos Int 16:1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-00005-01944-y
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Cederholm T, Cooper C, Landi F, Rolland Y, Sayer AA et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48:16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy1169
Chen LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Chou MY, Iijima K, Jang HC, Kang L, Kim M, Kim S et al (2020) Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc 21:300–307.e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.1012.1012
Hwang AC, Liu LK, Lee WJ, Peng LN, Chen LK (2018) Calf circumference as a screening instrument for appendicular muscle mass measurement. J Am Med Dir Assoc 19:182–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.1011.1016
Karkkainen M, Rikkonen T, Kroger H, Sirola J, Tuppurainen M, Salovaara K, Arokoski J, Jurvelin J, Honkanen R, Alhava E (2009) Physical tests for patient selection for bone mineral density measurements in postmenopausal women. Bone 44:66–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.1012.1010
Arazi H, Eghbali E, Saeedi T, Moghadam R (2016) The relationship of physical activity and anthropometric and physiological characteristics to bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 19:382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2016.1001.1005
Singh R, Gupta S (2015) Relationship of calf circumference with bone mineral density and hip geometry: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Arch Osteoporos 10:17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-11015-10221-11658
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 Manag Care 4:37–48
Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Kreiger N, McIsaac WJ, Darlington GA, Tu JV (2000) Development and validation of the osteoporosis risk assessment instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ 162:1289–1294
Koh LK, Sedrine WB, Torralba TP, Kung A, Fujiwara S, Chan SP, Huang QR, Rajatanavin R, Tsai KS, Park HM et al (2001) A simple tool to identify Asian women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 12:699–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170070
Masoni A, Morosano M, Pezzotto SM, Tomat F, Bentancur F, Bocanera R, Tozzini R, Puche RC (2005) Construction of two instruments for the presumptive detection of post-menopausal women with low spinal bone mass by means of clinical risk factors. Maturitas 51:314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.1008.1015
Wehren LE, Siris ES (2004) Beyond bone mineral density: can existing clinical risk assessment instruments identify women at increased risk of osteoporosis? J Intern Med 256:375–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01397.x
Densitometry TISfC: ISCD Official Positions – Adult. Retrieved from https://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2019
Huang JY, Song WZ, Huang M (2017) Effectiveness of osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in screening for osteoporosis in healthy males over 40 years old in China. J Clin Densitom 20:153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.1001.1003
Ribot C, Pouilles JM, Bonneu M, Tremollieres F (1992) Assessment of the risk of post-menopausal osteoporosis using clinical factors. Clin Endocrinol 36:225–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2265.1992.tb01436.x
Šimundić AM (2009) Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. EJIFCC 19:203–211 eCollection 2009 Jan
Chang SF, Yang RS (2016) Optimal analysis to discriminate males' osteoporosis with simple physiological indicators: a cutoff point study. Am J Mens Health 10:487–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315574857
Kung AW, Ho AY, Sedrine WB, Reginster JY, Ross PD (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-00003-01428-x
Gheller BJ, Riddle ES, Lem MR, Thalacker-Mercer AE (2016) Understanding age-related changes in skeletal muscle metabolism: differences between females and males. Annu Rev Nutr 36:129–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-050901
Anderson LJ, Liu H, Garcia JM (2017) Sex differences in muscle wasting. Adv Exp Med Biol 1043:153–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/1978-1003-1319-70178-70173_70179
Taniguchi Y, Makizako H, Kiyama R, Tomioka K, Nakai Y, Kubozono T, Takenaka T, Ohishi M (2019) The association between osteoporosis and grip strength and skeletal muscle mass in community-dwelling older women. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:160712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071228
Slemenda CW, Hui SL, Williams CJ, Christian JC, Meaney FJ, Johnston CC Jr (1990) Bone mass and anthropometric measurements in adult females. Bone Miner 11:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-6009(1090)90019-c
Subramaniam S, Ima-Nirwana S, Chin KY (2018) Performance of osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) in predicting osteoporosis-a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:150714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071445
Code availability
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by grants (CHGH109-(FA)03) and (CHGH108-24) from the Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Yen-Huai Lin and Michael Mu Huo Teng initiated the study, and all authors contributed to its design. Yen-Huai Lin and Michael Mu Huo Teng managed the data collection, performed the data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Yen-Huai Lin and Michael Mu Huo Teng are collectively responsible for interpreting the results and critically reviewed subsequent drafts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the institutional review board of Cheng Hsin General Hospital (IRB no. (660)107A-32).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 16 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, YH., Teng, M.M.H. Comparing self-assessment, functional, and anthropometric techniques in predicting osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 15, 132 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00806-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00806-4