ArticleJournal of osteoporosis2013
Osteoporosis self-assessment tool performance in a large sample of postmenopausal women of mendoza, Argentina.
Article in Journal of osteoporosis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2015Pooled it
- A comprehensive evaluation of seven osteoporosis screening tools.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Challenges and opportunities for quality densitometry in Latin America.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Review
- Implementing an Electronic Medical Record Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool Score Which Identifies Patients at Risk for Osteoporosis Promotes Osteoporosis Evaluation.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Estimating regional bone mineral density-based T-scores using clinical information; tools validated for postmenopausal women in Sri Lanka.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2020Article
- Article
- A Study of Risk Factors and T- Score Variability in Romanian Women with Postmenopausal Osteoporosis.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST) is a clinical instrument designed to select patients at risk of osteoporosis, who would benefit from a bone mineral density measurement. The OST only takes into account the age and weight of the subject. It was developed for Asian women and later validated for European and North American white women. The performance of the OST in a sample of 4343 women from Greater Mendoza, a large metropolitan area of Argentina, was assessed. Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of lumbar spine and hip were obtained. Patients were classified as either osteoporotic (N = 1830) or nonosteoporotic (n = 2513) according to their lowest T-score at any site. Osteoporotic patients had lower OST scores (P < 0.0001). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed an area under the curve of 71% (P < 0.0001), with a sensitivity of 83.7% and a specificity of 44% for a cut-off value of 2. Positive predictive value was 52% and negative predictive value was 79%. The odds ratio for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was 4.06 (CI95 3.51 to 4.71; P < 0.0001). It is concluded that the OST is useful for selecting postmenopausal women for DXA testing in the studied population.
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.