ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2006
Osteoporosis risk assessment and ethnicity: validation and comparison of 2 clinical risk stratification instruments.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.Current osteoporosis reports · 2015Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015Pooled it
- Identifying Younger Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis Using USPSTF-Recommended Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tools.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Observational
- Development of a diverse osteoporosis screening tool for older US adults from the health and retirement study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Considerations for using predictive models that include race as an input variable: The case study of lung cancer screening.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Risk assessment instruments for screening bone mineral density in a Mediterranean population.World journal of orthopedics · 2016Article
- The relationship between sodium intake and some bone minerals and osteoporosis risk assessment instrument in postmenopausal women.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2016Article
- Clinical performance of seven prescreening tools for osteoporosis in Iranian postmenopausal women.Rheumatology international · 2015Article
- Development and validation of osteoporosis prescreening model for Iranian postmenopausal women.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2015Article
- Comparison of three different osteoporosis risk assessment tools: ORAI (osteoporosis risk assessment instrument), SCORE (simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation) and OST (osteoporosis self-assessment tool).Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2014Article
- Clinical performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in women aged 67 years and older.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2008Article
- Development and internal validation of the male osteoporosis risk estimation score.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), coupled with early treatment, may reduce morbidity and mortality associated with osteoporosis. Clinical tools to enhance selection of women for DXA screening have not been developed or validated in an ethnically diverse population.
objectiveTo compare the performance of the osteoporosis risk assessment instrument (ORAI) and the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) instrument across 3 racial/ethnic groups to identify women who would benefit from DXA scans.
designBlinded comparison of the instruments in a cross-sectional sample.
participantsTwo-hundred twenty-six postmenopausal women were recruited from a university-based family medicine clinic. Women with a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis or those taking bone active medications were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed a questionnaire that contained the ORAI and the SCORE questions; 203 completed a DXA scan.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity for the ORAI (0.68, [0.49 to 0.88, 95% CI]; 0.66, [0.59 to 0.73, 95% CI]) and the SCORE instrument (0.54, [0.34 to 0.75, 95% CI]; 0.72, [0.65 to 0.78, 95% CI]) differed significantly from previous reports. Overall, the accuracy of the ORAI (66.5%) and SCORE instrument (70.0%) were similar (McNemar's test P value = .37). The accuracy between instruments differed significantly in African-American women (McNemar's test, P value <.001). In African Americans, the SCORE instrument correctly identified more women without osteoporosis, but missed 70% of those with osteoporosis.
conclusionsThe performance of the ORAI and SCORE instrument differed significantly from previous reports. Although both can reduce the use of DXA scans for screening for osteoporosis, lower sensitivities resulted in underrecognition of osteoporosis and may limit their clinical usefulness in an ethnically diverse population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.