Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17361324›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2007

Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review.

B Rud, J Hilden, L Hyldstrup, A Hróbjartsson

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool versus alternative tests for selecting postmenopausal women for bone mineral density assessment: a comparative systematic review of accuracy.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2009
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Chronic joint pain and handgrip strength correlates with osteoporosis in mid-life women: a Singaporean cohort.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Who should receive bone mineral density testing?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry among Caucasian women and men without a prior fracture according to age and body weight.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Application of Osteorisk to postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2010
    Article
  18. Weight and body mass index predict bone mineral density and fractures in women aged 40 to 59 years.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2009
    Article
  19. Elevated bone mass: a weighty matter?Skeletal radiology · 2008
    Review
  20. 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 · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B RudOsteoporosis Unit 545, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegaard Allé 30, 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark. mail@borud.dk
J Hilden
L Hyldstrup
A Hróbjartsson
Hvidovre Hospital · DKRigshospitalet · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple test that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density. We performed a systematic review to assess its performance in postmenopausal women. We included 36 studies. OST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5. Methodological study quality was generally low.

introductionThe Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) is a simple clinical decision rule based on age and weight that may be of clinical value to rule-out low bone mineral density (BMD). Our aim was to systematically assess the performance of OST in postmenopausal women.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, citation lists and conference proceedings for studies evaluating OST using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference test to measure BMD. We evaluated methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. Our main outcome was the likelihood ratio of a negative OST result (LR-).

resultsOST performed moderately in ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5 in whites, summary LR- (sLR-) 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.21) and between-study heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 7%). The corresponding performance in Asians was similar, sLR- 0.19 (0.14-0.28), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 64%). OST performed poorly in ruling-out lumbar spine T-score <or= -2.5 in whites and Asians, sLR- 0.43 (0.31-0.59) and 0.32 (0.28-0.38), respectively. The performance in ruling-out T-score <or= -2.0 in whites was poor regardless of region (sLR- >or=0.28). Methodological study quality was generally low.

conclusionsThe clinical usefulness of OST is uncertain. OST could be useful for ruling-out femoral neck T-score <or= -2.5, but confirmatory high-quality studies are needed.

Indexed as

Bone DensityAdultFemaleFractures, BoneHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalPatient SelectionRacial GroupsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID17361324
OpenAlexW2105805922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.