Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22147714›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2011

Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Smita Nayak, Mark S Roberts, Susan L Greenspan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Smita NayakUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA. nayaks@upmc.edu
Mark S Roberts
Susan L Greenspan
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2RR024154 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2006 to 2011
$22.2M
Osteoporosis in Older Men and WomenK24DK062895 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI GREENSPAN, SUSAN L · 2003 to 2012
$1.6M
Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening StrateR01AR060809 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NAYAK, SMITA · 2011 to 2013
$727k
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024154NIAMS NIH HHS 1R01AR060809-01NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR060809NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK062895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe best strategies to screen postmenopausal women for osteoporosis are not clear.

objectiveTo identify the cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies.

designIndividual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 55 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer.

interventionScreening strategies composed of alternative tests (central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography [QUS], and the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE] tool) initiation ages, treatment thresholds, and rescreening intervals. Oral bisphosphonate treatment was assumed, with a base-case adherence rate of 50% and a 5-year on/off treatment pattern. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2010 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: At all evaluated ages, screening was superior to not screening. In general, quality-adjusted life-days gained with screening tended to increase with age. At all initiation ages, the best strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000 per QALY was DXA screening with a T-score threshold of -2.5 or less for treatment and with follow-up screening every 5 years. Across screening initiation ages, the best strategy with an ICER less than $50,000 per QALY was initiation of screening at age 55 years by using DXA -2.5 with rescreening every 5 years. The best strategy with an ICER less than $100,000 per QALY was initiation of screening at age 55 years by using DXA with a T-score threshold of -2.0 or less for treatment and then rescreening every 10 years. No other strategy that involved treatment of women with osteopenia had an ICER less than $100,000 per QALY. Many other strategies, including strategies with SCORE or QUS prescreening, were also cost-effective, and in general the differences in effectiveness and costs between evaluated strategies was small. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis did not reveal a consistently superior strategy. LIMITATIONS: Data were primarily from white women. Screening initiation at ages younger than 55 years were not examined. Only osteoporotic fractures of the hip, vertebrae, and wrist were modeled.

conclusionMany strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis screening are effective and cost-effective, including strategies involving screening initiation at age 55 years. No strategy substantially outperforms another. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Research Resources.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAgedAged, 80 and overBone Density Conservation AgentsCalcaneusCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Care CostsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesProbabilityQuality-Adjusted Life YearsBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID22147714
PMCPMC3318923
OpenAlexW2005229665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.