Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep 18;7(9):577-83.
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i9.577.

Risk assessment instruments for screening bone mineral density in a Mediterranean population

Sotirios Christodoulou  1 , Georgios I Drosos  1 , Athanasios Ververidis  1 , Antonios Galanos  1 , George Anastassopoulos  1 , Konstantinos Kazakos  1
Affiliations

Risk assessment instruments for screening bone mineral density in a Mediterranean population

Sotirios Christodoulou et al. World J Orthop. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the power of six osteoporosis-screening instruments in women in a Mediterranean country.

Methods: Data concerning several osteoporosis risk factors were prospectively collected from 1000 postmenopausal women aged 42-87 years who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) screening. Six osteoporosis risk factor screening tools were applied to this sample to evaluate their performance and choose the most appropriate tool for the study population.

Results: The most important screening tool for osteoporosis status was the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation, which had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.678, a sensitivity of 72%, and a specificity of 72%, with a cut-off point of 20.75. The most important screening tool for osteoporosis risk was the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool, which had an AUC of 0.643, a sensitivity of 77%, and a specificity of 46%, with a cut-off point of -2.9.

Conclusion: Some commonly used clinical risk instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for distinguishing individuals with DEXA-ascertained osteoporosis or reduced bone mineral density.

Keywords: Bone mineral density; Dual X-ray absorptiometry; Osteopenia; Osteoporosis; Risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Cummings SR, Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet. 2002;359:1761–1767. - PubMed
    1. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004;35:375–382. - PubMed
    1. Melton III L, Cooper C. Magnitude and impact of osteoporosis and fractures. In: Marcus R, Feldman D, Kelsey J, editors. Osteoporosis. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001. pp. 557–567.
    1. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1726–1733. - PubMed
    1. Johnell O. The socioeconomic burden of fractures: today and in the 21st century. Am J Med. 1997;103:20S–25S; discussion 25S-26S. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources