Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18230132›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2008

The utility of clinical decision tools for diagnosing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis.

Caroline Brand, Adrian Lowe, Stephen Hall

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Osteoimmunology and osteoporosis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2011
    Review
  6. Bone mineral density changes in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline BrandClinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit, Melbourne Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital - Royal Park Campus, Park House, Building 22, Parkville Vic 3052, Australia. Caroline.Brand@mh.org.au
Adrian Lowe
Stephen Hall
Cabrini Hospital · AUMelbourne Health · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with rheumatoid arthritis have a higher risk of low bone mineral density than normal age matched populations. There is limited evidence to support cost effectiveness of population screening in rheumatoid arthritis and case finding strategies have been proposed as a means to increase cost effectiveness of diagnostic screening for osteoporosis. This study aimed to assess the performance attributes of generic and rheumatoid arthritis specific clinical decision tools for diagnosing osteoporosis in a postmenopausal population with rheumatoid arthritis who attend ambulatory specialist rheumatology clinics.

methodsA cross-sectional study of 127 ambulatory post-menopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis was performed. Patients currently receiving or who had previously received bone active therapy were excluded. Eligible women underwent clinical assessment and dual-energy-xray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mineral density assessment. Clinical decision tools, including those specific for rheumatoid arthritis, were compared to seven generic post-menopausal tools to predict osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values and area under the curve were assessed. The diagnostic attributes of the clinical decision tools were compared by examination of the area under the receiver-operator-curve.

resultsOne hundred and twenty seven women participated. The median age was 62 (IQR 56-71) years. Median disease duration was 108 (60-168) months. Seventy two (57%) women had no record of a previous DXA examination. Eighty (63%) women had T scores at femoral neck or lumbar spine less than -1. The area under the ROC curve for clinical decision tool prediction of T score <-2.5 varied between 0.63 and 0.76. The rheumatoid arthritis specific decision tools did not perform better than generic tools, however, the National Osteoporosis Foundation score could potentially reduce the number of unnecessary DXA tests by approximately 45% in this population.

conclusionThere was limited utility of clinical decision tools for predicting osteoporosis in this patient population. Fracture prediction tools that include risk factors independent of BMD are needed.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedArthritis, RheumatoidBone DensityCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, Postmenopausal

Identifiers

PMID18230132
PMCPMC2270830
OpenAlexW2010052499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.