Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24582084›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Simplified criteria for selecting patients for vertebral fracture assessment.

Sharon H Chou, Tamara J Vokes, Siu-Ling Ma, Maureen Costello, Harold R Rosen, John T Schousboe

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Sharon H ChouSection of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tamara J VokesSection of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: tvokes@uchicago.edu.
Siu-Ling MaQueens Diabetes and Endocrinology Associates, Flushing, NY, USA.
Maureen CostelloSection of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Harold R RosenDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
John T SchousboePark Nicollet Osteoporosis Center and Institute for Research and Education, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Re-Engineering Translational Research at the University of ChicagoUL1TR000430 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2012 to 2016
$20.2M
INTERGRATED CLINICAL AND BASIC ENDOCRINOLOGY RESEARCHT32DK007011 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Raghavendra G Mirmira · 1986 to 2026
$5.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000430NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2013 Position Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has adopted simplified indications for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) based on an analysis of the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). This showed that a simpler regression model, which included only age, bone mineral density (BMD), and height loss, was able to differentiate women with vertebral fractures from those without vertebral fractures almost as well as more complex models. We aimed to verify these findings in 1228 women referred for BMD testing and determine if the 2013 ISCD indications for VFA would perform as well the 2007 indications. The simple and complex SOF-based models were similar in terms of sensitivity (88.4% vs 89.4%), specificity (44.4% vs 45.5%), positive (25.9% vs 26.5%) and negative (94.5% vs 95.1%) predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) (0.664 vs 0.674). The 2013 and 2007 ISCD VFA indications did not differ significantly in terms of sensitivity (88.2% vs 91.3%), specificity (41.3% vs 37.5%), positive (25.3% vs 22.9%) and negative (93.9% vs 95.5%) predictive values, and AUROC (0.648 vs 0.644). Our study provides support for the use of the simplified 2013 ISCD VFA indications as a practical approach to VFA testing.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonPatient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalPredictive Value of TestsSpinal FracturesSurveys and QuestionnairesScreeningvertebral fracturevertebral fracture assessment

Identifiers

PMID24582084
PMCPMC4121592

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.