 |
|
Evaluation of Decision Rules for Referring Women for Bone Densitometry by Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
Suzanne M. Cadarette, MSc;
Susan B. Jaglal, PhD;
Timothy M. Murray, MD;
Warren J. McIsaac, MD,MSc;
Lawrence Joseph, PhD;
Jacques P. Brown, MD;
for the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos)
JAMA. 2001;286:57-63.
Context Identification of women with low bone mineral density (BMD) is an important strategy in reducing the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. However, screening all women is not recommended.
Objectives To assess the diagnostic properties of 4 decision rules—Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE), Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Age, Body Size, No Estrogen (ABONE), and body weight less than 70 kg (weight criterion)—for selecting women for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing and to compare results with recommendations made in the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) practice guidelines.
Design and Setting Analysis of data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, a population-based community sample, collected from 9 study centers across Canada between February 1996 and September 1997.
Participants Postmenopausal women aged 45 years or older (N = 2365) without bone disease who had DXA data for the femoral neck, data to apply selection criteria, and who were not currently taking estrogens or who had been taking hormone replacement therapy for 5 or more years.
Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of each of the 4 decision rules and the NOF guidelines for identifying women with a BMD T score of less than -1.0 SD, less than -2.0 SD, and no more than -2.5 SD at the femoral neck, and percentages of women recommended for testing, stratified by BMD level and age.
Results The percent of women with a BMD T score less than -1, less than -2, and no more than -2.5 were 68.3%, 25.4%, and 10.0%, respectively. The AUROC curves were greatest using SCORE and ORAI. The sensitivity for identifying women with a BMD T score of less than -2.0 was 93.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.8%-95.6%) using the NOF guidelines and was 97.5% (95% CI, 96.3%-98.8%), 94.2% (95% CI, 92.3%-96.1%), 79.1% (95% CI, 75.9%-82.3%), and 79.6% (95% CI, 76.4%-82.8%), respectively, using the SCORE, ORAI, ABONE, and weight criterion. However, the NOF guidelines also resulted in 74.4% (95% CI, 71.3%-77.6%) of women with a normal BMD (T score of -1.0 or higher) being tested compared with 69.2% (95% CI, 65.9%-72.5%), 56.3% (95% CI, 52.7%-59.8%), 35.8% (95% CI, 32.4%-39.2%), and 38.1% (95% CI, 34.6%-41.6%), respectively, using the 4 decision rules. Assessments suggest that ABONE and weight criterion are not useful case-finding approaches.
Conclusion The SCORE and ORAI decision rules are better than the NOF guidelines at targeting BMD testing in high-risk patients. The acceptability of these rules in clinical practice merits further investigation given their potential effect on the use of densitometry services.
Author Affiliations: Osteoporosis Research Program, Women's College Ambulatory Care Centre, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Department of Health Administration (Ms Cadarette and Dr Jaglal), Department of Rehabilitation Science (Dr Jaglal), Metabolic Bone Clinic, St Michael's Hospital, Department of Medicine (Dr Murray), and Mount Sinai Family Medicine Centre, Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dr McIsaac), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Québec (Dr Joseph); and Department of Medicine, Laval University, Québec, Québec City (Dr Brown).
RELATED LETTER
Who Should Be Screened for Osteoporosis?
Louis Weinstein, Cosimo Roberto Russo, Fulvio Lauretani, Francesca De Marco, Luigi Ferrucci, Suzanne M. Cadarette, Susan B. Jaglal, Timothy M. Murray, and Warren J. McIsaac
JAMA. 2001;286(16):1970-1971.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
July 4, 2001
JAMA. 2001;286(1):111-112.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A computer-aided diagnosis system to screen for osteoporosis using dental panoramic radiographs
Nakamoto et al.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:274-281.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ASHP Therapeutic Position Statement on the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis in Adults
MacLaughlin and Raehl
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:343-357.
FULL TEXT
The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool: A Useful Tool for the Orthopaedic Surgeon
Skedros et al.
JBJS 2007;89:765-772.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnostic performance of general dental practitioners after lecture in identifying post-menopausal women with low bone mineral density by panoramic radiographs.
Sutthiprapaporn et al.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:249-252.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of the Achilles Express Ultrasonometer with Central Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry
Grabe et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2006;40:830-835.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Translating Clinical Research into Clinical Practice: Impact of Using Prediction Rules To Make Decisions
Reilly and Evans
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:201-209.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Bone Density and the Risk of Fractures: Should Treatment Thresholds Vary by Race?
Acheson
JAMA 2005;293:2151-2154.
FULL TEXT
Use of Clinical Prediction Rules in Detecting Osteoporosis in a Population-Based Sample of Postmenopausal Women
Mauck et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:530-536.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Does This Woman Have Osteoporosis?
Green et al.
JAMA 2004;292:2890-2900.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Validation and comparative evaluation of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) in a Caucasian population from Belgium
Richy et al.
QJM 2004;97:39-46.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2002 pour le diagnostic et le traitement de l'osteoporose au Canada
Brown and Josse
CMAJ 2003;168:SF1-38.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical decision rules in rheumatoid arthritis: do they identify patients at high risk for osteoporosis? Testing clinical criteria in a population based cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis recruited from the Oslo Rheumatoid Arthritis Register
Haugeberg et al.
Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:1085-1089.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada
Brown and Josse
CMAJ 2002;167:s1-34.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Screening for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: Recommendations and Rationale
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
ANN INTERN MED 2002;137:526-528.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Nelson et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;137:529-541.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Who Should Be Screened for Osteoporosis?
Weinstein et al.
JAMA 2001;286:1970-1971.
FULL TEXT
Bone-Mineral Density Assessment: Who Needs It?
JWatch Women's Health 2001;2001:1-1.
FULL TEXT
|
