Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The validity of decision rules for selecting women with primary osteoporosis for bone mineral density testing

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

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) chart and equation, and a criterion based on body weight for identifying women with asymptomatic primary osteoporosis. Prospective recruitment and chart abstractions from family practices of three University affiliated hospitals were completed for women aged 45 years or more with baseline bone mineral density (BMD) testing results by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Those taking bone active medication other than hormone therapy, with prior fragility fracture or with risk factors for secondary osteoporosis were excluded. Women were categorized as being normal, osteopenic or osteoporotic by lowest BMD T-score at either the femoral neck or lumbar spine (L1–L4). Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to identify those with osteoporosis were determined for each decision rule. The positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting osteoporosis after using a second cut point to convert each decision rule into a risk index (low, moderate or high risk) was also determined. The sensitivity of the decision rules to identify women with osteoporosis ranged from 92% to 95% and specificity from 35% to 46%. The area under the ROC curves were significantly better for the ORAI (0.80), OST chart (0.82) and OST equation (0.82) compared with the body weight criterion (0.73). PPV for detecting osteoporosis ranged from 30% to 58% among women deemed at high risk. These data confirm the validity of the ORAI, the OST chart and the OST equation as screening tools for BMD testing. Further evidence is required to confirm the validity of the body weight criterion.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Genant HK, Cooper C, Poor G et al. (1999) Interim report and recommendations of the World Health Organization task-force for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 10:259–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. US Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Int Med 137:526–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown JP, Josse RG, for the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada (2002) 2002 Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ 167:S1–S34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sambrook PN, Seeman E, Phillips SR, Ebeling PR (2002) Preventing osteoporosis: outcomes of the Australian fracture prevention summit. Med J Aust 176:S1–S16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson HD, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Allan JD (2002) Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Int Med 137:529–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bates DW, Black DM, Cummings SR (2002) Clinical use of bone densitometry: clinical applications. JAMA 288:1898–1900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J (2002) Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 321:669–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC et al. (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature. XXII: How to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 284:79–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Michaëlsson K, Bergström R, Mallmin H et al. (1996) Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: selection by body composition. Osteoporos Int 6:120–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sedrine WB, Chevallier T, Zegels B et al. (2002) Development and assessment of the Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. Gynecol Endocrinol 16:245–250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein L, Ullery B (2000) Identification of at-risk women for osteoporosis screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:547–549

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM et al. (2001) Evaluation of decision rules for referring women for bone densitometry by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. JAMA 286:57–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. National Osteoporosis Foundation (2003) Physician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington D.C.

  19. World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva

  20. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (1994) The Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care. Minister of Supply & Services Canada, Ottawa

  21. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 285:785–795

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice (2002) Bone density screening for osteoporosis. Obstet Gynecol 99:523–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaglal SB, Carrol J, Hawker G et al. (2003) How are family physicians managing osteoporosis? Qualitative study of their experiences and educational needs. Can Fam Phy 49:462–468

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB (1995) Changing physician performance: a systematic review of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274:700–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams MI, Petkov VI, Johnson SL et al. (2003) Applying the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) in primary care practices uncovers osteoporosis in men: Preliminary report [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 18:s154

    Google Scholar 

  27. Adler RA, Tran MT, Petkov VI (2003) Performance of the osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool for osteoporosis in American men. Mayo Clin Proc 78:723–727

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hochberg MC, Tracy JK, van der Klift M, Pols H (2002) Validation of a risk index to identify men with an increased likelihood of osteoporosis (abstract). J Bone Miner Res 17:s231

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kmetic A, Joseph L, Berger C, Tenenhouse A (2002) Multiple imputation to account for missing data in a survey: estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis. Epidemiology 13:437–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ross PD (1997) Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med 103:30s–43s

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH (1996) Clinical epidemiology: the essentials, 3rd edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  32. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG (1997) Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 277:488–494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ms. Cadarette is supported by a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (OMHLTC), and an Ontario Women’s Health Scholars Doctoral Prize by the Ontario Women’s Health Council. Dr. Jaglal is a Career Scientist of the OMHLTC and Dr. Hawker is a CIHR Scientist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne M. Cadarette.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cadarette, S.M., McIsaac, W.J., Hawker, G.A. et al. The validity of decision rules for selecting women with primary osteoporosis for bone mineral density testing. Osteoporos Int 15, 361–366 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1552-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1552-7

Keywords

Navigation