Evaluation of the performance of osteoporosis/fracture screening models to identify high-risk women for osteoporosis: Bushehr elderly health (BEH) program.
Fracture
Osteoporosis
Post-menopausal women
Risk assessment
Screening
Journal
Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders
ISSN: 2251-6581
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Metab Disord
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101590741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
28
06
2022
revised:
06
08
2022
accepted:
08
08
2022
entrez:
21
11
2022
pubmed:
22
11
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the performance of valid risk assessment models developed for osteoporosis/ fracture screening to identify women in need of bone density measurement in a population of Iranian elderly women. This study was performed using the data of Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program, a population-based cohort study of elderly population aged ≥ 60 years. Seven osteoporosis risk assessment tools, including Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool (MOST), Osteoporosis Prescreening Risk Assessment (OPERA), Osteoporosis Prescreening Model for Iranian Postmenopausal women (OPMIP), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), as well as Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) were included in the study. By using osteoporosis definition based on BMD results, the performance measurement criteria of diagnostic tests such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Youden index for each model were calculated and the models were compared. A total of 1237 female participants with the mean age of 69.1 ± 6.3 years were included. Overall, 733 (59%) participants had osteoporosis, and about 80% had no history of fracture. The sensitivity of the seven models ranged from 16.7% (OSIRIS) to 100% (ORAI and MOST) at their recommended cut-off points. Moreover,their specificity ranged from 0.0% (ORAI and MOST) to 78.9% (OSTA). The FRAX and OPERA had the optimal performance with the Youden index of 0.237 and 0.226, respectively. Moreover, after combining these models, the sensitivity of them increased to 85.4%. We found that the FRAX (model with 11 simple variables) and OPERA (model with 5 simple variables) had the best performance. By combining the models, the performance of each was improved. Further studies are needed to adopt the model and to find the best cut-off point in the Iranian postmenopausal women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36404865
doi: 10.1007/s40200-022-01110-3
pii: 1110
pmc: PMC9672243
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1609-1617Informations de copyright
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing interest.
Références
J Clin Med Res. 2017 May;9(5):382-387
pubmed: 28392857
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 04;7(8):e013606
pubmed: 28780537
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Mar 1;154(5):356-64
pubmed: 21242341
Bone. 2013 Sep;56(1):16-22
pubmed: 23669650
Osteoporos Int. 2007 Aug;18(8):1033-46
pubmed: 17323110
Osteoporos Int. 2002 May;13(5):434-42
pubmed: 12086356
CMAJ. 2002 Nov 12;167(10 Suppl):S1-34
pubmed: 12427685
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Mar-Apr;29(2):233-9
pubmed: 26957380
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 16;5(12):e009597
pubmed: 26674503
Epidemiology. 2005 Jan;16(1):73-81
pubmed: 15613948
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2002 Jun;16(3):245-50
pubmed: 12192897
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(20):e3415
pubmed: 27196447
Osteoporos Int. 2004 Jan;15(1):38-42
pubmed: 14593451
Calcif Tissue Int. 2007 Mar;80(3):147-53
pubmed: 17340222
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Hum Reprod Update. 2007 Nov-Dec;13(6):559-65
pubmed: 17630397
J Clin Densitom. 2018 Jan - Mar;21(1):119-124
pubmed: 28958825
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015 Mar 17;14:12
pubmed: 25821747
Osteoporos Int. 2014 Mar;25(3):875-85
pubmed: 24072404
Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(5):417-27
pubmed: 11444092
J Bone Miner Res. 1996 Jun;11(6):707-30
pubmed: 8725168
Health Care Women Int. 2019 Oct;40(10):1084-1100
pubmed: 30526422
Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Jun;24(3):203-11
pubmed: 15549501
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2011 Apr;2(2):77-82
pubmed: 21439525
Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(8):699-705
pubmed: 11580084
Eur J Rheumatol. 2017 Mar;4(1):46-56
pubmed: 28293453
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 May;103 Suppl 13:2-7; discussion 7-8
pubmed: 8624337
Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2015 Oct;13(5):287-301
pubmed: 26233285
JAMA. 2001 Feb 14;285(6):785-95
pubmed: 11176917
CMAJ. 2000 May 2;162(9):1289-94
pubmed: 10813010
Osteoporos Int. 2008 Apr;19(4):385-97
pubmed: 18292978