Trial reportAtencion primaria2007
[Predictive value of ultra-sound densitometry as a method of selective screening for osteoporosis in primary care].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Evidence based comparative analysis for managing osteoporosis in a primary health care setting].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cut-off point of calcaneous quantitative ultrasound densitometry (QUS) as a selection method in primary care for referral of postmenopausal women for dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
designDiagnostic techniques trial.
settingFour general practices in the Basque Country Autonomous Region, Spain.
participantsRandomly selected Caucasian women older than 45, chosen at random. A sample size of 146 women was used.
interventionsCalcaneous ultrasound bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, using Achilles Express(R) and DXA. PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS: T-score BMD measurement on both devices. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of QUS and finally the ideal cut-off value were calculated.
resultsThe mean age of the sample was 58.2 (17.7) (range, 48-83 years old). The prevalence of women with osteoporosis, osteopaenia and normal DXA was 14.1%, 50.4% and 35.5%, respectively. The estimated sensitivity of QUS was 78.9% (56.7-91.5) and the specificity was 64.7% (55.6-72.8). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 94.9% (87.7-98.0) and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 26.8% (17.0-39.6). After the COR curve analysis, the ideal cut-off for QUS was determined as a T-score </= -2.0.
conclusionsGiven its high NPV, QUS can be considered a useful device for screening before DXA. Its low PPV means it has to be combined with other complementary or substitutive selective screening methods, such as predictive rules, which should be evaluated in each specific use.
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.