ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2015
Targeted assessment of fracture risk in women at midlife.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abaloparatide for risk reduction of nonvertebral and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThis study establishes a profile for women at midlife, referred for a dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), most likely to have osteoporosis, and from this, a pre-DXA screening tool has been developed. These findings inform much needed evidence-based guidelines for targeted and effective screening for osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture prevention in women at midlife.
introductionThere is no consensus as to whether women at midlife should undergo screening dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to identify osteoporosis (T-score < -2.5).
methodsWe investigated the prevalence of osteoporosis in women, aged 40-65 years, referred to 42 community-based Australian radiology centres, and identified the characteristics that best predict osteoporosis in women having a screening DXA.
resultsOne thousand four hundred and two women completed the study questionnaire and had DXA reports available. After excluding women with an established indication for a DXA (58 %), users of bone-specific medication (10.5 %) and cancer (7.6 %), 466 women were classified as having a screening DXA. Forty of these women had osteoporosis at the lumbar spine (n = 32, 6.9 %) or femoral neck (n = 17, 3.6 %). Three predictors of osteoporosis (postmenopausal, nonuse of hormonal therapy and body mass index) were identified and incorporated into the Monash Osteoporosis Risk Score for women at midlife (MORS). In the screened study population, the MORS had a sensitivity of 70 % and specificity of 66 %, with a positive predictive value of 16.2 % and negative predictive value of 95.9 % for osteoporosis.
conclusionsVery few women referred for a screening DXA scan will be found to have osteoporosis. The MORS, a simple decision tool, would have identified 70 % of the women in our screening DXA study population and would have eliminated over 60 % of the screening DXA studies. Hence, use of the MORS may reduce unnecessary DXA scans and facilitate identification of the majority of cases of osteoporosis in women aged 40 to 65 years.
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.