Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry

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

Abstract

Several methods to select postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) have been proposed. We decided to compare the performance of three clinical decision rules (SCORE, ORAI, OST) with the usual case-finding strategy based on the presence of a major risk factor for future fracture (CFMRF). The study subjects were 2009 healthy, white, peri- or early postmenopausal women participating in the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study (DOPS). DXA results expressed as T-scores and scores on SCORE, ORAI, OST and CFMRF were extracted from the DOPS database. First, we evaluated the screening tools as originally described by the developers. The resulting sensitivities and specificities ranged from 18% to 92% and from 66% to 85%, respectively. Only OST achieved a high sensitivity (92%) with respect to femoral neck T-score ≤−2.5; however, the sensitivity with respect to lumbar spine T-score ≤−2.5 was only 51%. Next, the performance of the screening tools was evaluated against T-score ≤−2.0 (and T-score ≤−2.5) in at least one of the regions: femoral neck, total hip or lumbar spine. Using ROC curve analysis, we determined cut-offs yielding sensitivities as close as possible to 90%. The CFMRF and the ORAI tool were too coarse to yield 90% sensitivity. The performances of OST and SCORE were equal from a clinical perspective in that the sensitivities and the specificities varied from 89% to 94% and from 23% to 28%, respectively. The performance of CFMRF was no better than could be expected by chance, yielding a sensitivity of 19% and a specificity of 85%. Applying SCORE or OST 75% of the women would have to be referred for densitometry to identify 90% of the women with T-score ≤−2.0 (or T-score ≤−2.5) in at least one region. In conclusion, our results question the utility of all the evaluated tools for screening peri- and early postmenopausal women for low BMD. However, if a decision on referral has to be made, it may be based on the simple OST rule, which performed as well as or better than any of the other tools.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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, Reid I, Ehrlich G, Kanis J 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. Kanis J, Delmas PD, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Torgerson D (1997) Guidelines for the prevention and management of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7:390–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meunier PJ, Delmas PD, Eastell R, McClung MR, Papapoulos S, Rizzoli R et al. (1999) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: clinical guidelines. International Committee for Osteoporosis Clinical Guidelines. Clin Ther 21:1025–1044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Espallargues M, Sampietro-Colom L, Estrada MD, Sola M, del Rio L, Setoain J et al. (2001) Identifying bone-mass-related risk factors for fracture to guide bone densitometry measurements: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 12:811–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hodson J, Marsh J (2003) Quantitative ultrasound and risk factor enquiry as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparative study in primary care. BMJ 326:1250–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Versluis RG, Papapoulos SE, de Bock GH, Zwinderman AH, Petri H, van de Ven CM et al. (2001) Clinical risk factors as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 51:806–810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koh LK, Sedrine WB, Torralba TP, Kung A, Fujiwara S, Chan SP 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 

  10. 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 

  11. Ben Sedrine W, Devogelaer JP, Kaufman JM, Goemaere S, Depresseux G, Zegels B et al. (2001) Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in a sample of white women from Belgium. Bone 29:374–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM (1999) Validation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) for patient selection for bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int 10:85–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM, McIsaac WJ, Joseph L, Brown JP (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 

  14. Geusens P, Hochberg MC, van der Voort DJ, Pols H, van der Klift M, Siris E et al. (2002) Performance of risk indices for identifying low bone density in postmenopausal women. Mayo Clin Proc 77:629–637

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Russell AS, Morrison RT (2001) An assessment of the new “SCORE” index as a predictor of osteoporosis in women. Scand J Rheumatol 30:35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ungar WJ, Josse R, Lee S, Ryan N, Adachi R, Hanley D et al. (2000) The Canadian SCORE questionnaire: optimizing the use of technology for low bone density assessment. Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimate. J Clin Densitom 3:269–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Von Muhlen D, Visby LA, Barrett-Connor E, Bettencourt R (1999) Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in older Caucasian women: the Rancho Bernardo study. Osteoporos Int 10:79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Del Mar C, Glasziou P (2003) How many conditions can a GP screen for? BMJ 327:1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mosekilde L, Hermann AP, Beck-Nielsen H, Charles P, Nielsen SP, Sorensen OH (1999) The Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study (DOPS): project design and inclusion of 2000 normal perimenopausal women. Maturitas 31:207–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML et al. (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abrahamsen B, Gram J, Hansen TB, Beck-Nielsen H (1995) Cross calibration of QDR-2000 and QDR-1000 dual-energy X-ray densitometers for bone mineral and soft-tissue measurements. Bone 16:385–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP et al. (1998) Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporos Int 8:468–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sedrine WB, Reginster JY (2003) Using the OST index to identify women at risk of osteoporosis: a validation study in Belgium. Osteoporos Int 13:S109

    Google Scholar 

  24. Armitage P., Berry G. (1987) Statistical inference. Statistical methods in medical research, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 93–140

  25. Report of a WHO study group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, Geneva

  26. Pouilles JM, Tremollieres F, Ribot C (1993) Spine and femur densitometry at the menopause: are both sites necessary in the assessment of the risk of osteoporosis? Calcif Tissue Int 52:344–347

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hamdy RC, Petak SM, Lenchik L (2002) Which central dual X-ray absorptiometry skeletal sites and regions of interest should be used to determine the diagnosis of osteoporosis? J Clin Densitom 5:S11–S18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wildner M, Peters A, Raghuvanshi VS, Hohnloser J, Siebert U (2003) Superiority of age and weight as variables in predicting osteoporosis in postmenopausal white women. Osteoporos Int 14:950–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dargent-Molina P, Poitiers F, Breart G (2000) In elderly women weight is the best predictor of a very low bone mineral density: evidence from the EPIDOS study. Osteoporos Int 11:881–888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vestergaard P, Hermann AP, Gram J, Jensen LB, Eiken P, Abrahamsen B et al. (2001) Evaluation of methods for prediction of bone mineral density by clinical and biochemical variables in perimenopausal women. Maturitas 40:211–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schuit SC, van der KM, Weel AE, de Laet CE, Burger H, Seeman E, Hofman A, Uitterlinden AG, van Leeuwen JP, Pols HA (2004) Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone 34:195–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Law MR, Wald NJ, Meade TW (1991) Strategies for prevention of osteoporosis and hip fracture. BMJ 303:453–459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mosekilde L, Beck-Nielsen H, Sorensen OH, Nielsen SP, Charles P, Vestergaard P et al. (2000) Hormonal replacement therapy reduces forearm fracture incidence in recent postmenopausal women—results of the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study. Maturitas 36:181–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Koster A (1990) Hormone replacement therapy: use patterns in 51-year-old Danish women. Maturitas 12:345–356

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Oddens BJ, Boulet MJ (1997) Hormone replacement therapy among Danish women aged 45–65 years: prevalence, determinants, and compliance. Obstet Gynecol 90:269–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Beral V (2003) Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 362:419–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grady D (2003) Postmenopausal hormones--therapy for symptoms only. N Engl J Med 348:1835–1837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McPherson K (2004) Where are we now with hormone replacement therapy? BMJ 328:357–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lagro-Janssen T, Rosser WW, van Weel C (2003) Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy: up to general practice to pick up the pieces. Lancet 362:414–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Liberman UA, Weiss SR, Broll J, Minne HW, Quan H, Bell NH et al. (1995) Effect of oral alendronate on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The Alendronate Phase III Osteoporosis Treatment Study Group. N Engl J Med 333:1437–1443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Heaney RP, Zizic TM, Fogelman I, Olszynski WP, Geusens P, Kasibhatla C et al. (2002) Risedronate reduces the risk of first vertebral fracture in osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 13:501–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK et al. (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. JAMA 282:637–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, Applegate WB, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner TA et al. (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280:2077–2082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW (2000) Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet 356:1844–1847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Charlotte Landbo Tofteng for her helpfulness and support as well as Asbjørn Hróbjartsson for commenting on an earlier version of the manuscript. The project was possible due to a grant from Karen Elise Jensens Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Osteoporosis Unit 545, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegaard Allé 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark

    B. Rud & J. E. B. Jensen

  2. Department of Medicine and Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    L. Mosekilde

  3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hilleroed Hospital, Hilleroed, Denmark

    S. P. Nielsen

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Panum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

    J. Hilden

  5. Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    B. Abrahamsen

Authors
  1. B. Rud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. E. B. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Mosekilde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. P. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Hilden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Abrahamsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Rud.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rud, B., Jensen, J.E.B., Mosekilde, L. et al. Performance of four clinical screening tools to select peri- and early postmenopausal women for dual X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 16, 764–772 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1748-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1748-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation