ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009
Validation of the Dutch guidelines for dual X-ray absorptiometry measurement.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Multidisciplinary consensus on the management of patients with osteopenia and fracture risk in Spain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Risk factors for osteoporosis, falls and fractures in hereditary myopathies and sporadic inclusion body myositis - A cross sectional survey.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2014Article
- Improving the sensitivity of the Dutch guidelines for case finding in osteoporosis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- A fractured service: the latest advice on osteoporosis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Europe, a case-finding strategy for osteoporosis is recommended above widespread population-based screening. However, no universally accepted policy currently exists. In 2005, the Dutch College of General Practitioners published guidelines for GPs to select patients for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
aimTo evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the Dutch guidelines to select participants with osteoporosis for DXA. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional.
settingA total of 345 females aged over 50 years (mean age = 62 years, standard deviation [SD] = 8.3) and 99 males over 65 years of age (mean age = 72 years, SD = 5.2) of a Dutch general practice.
methodCalculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Dutch case-finding instrument for selecting patients with osteoporosis for DXA measurement.
resultsSensitivity was 19.5%, specificity 85.6%, PPV 18.6%, and NPV 86.6%.
conclusionThe Dutch guidelines are unreliable in detecting people at risk for osteoporosis.
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.