Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25634771›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2015

Is calcaneal quantitative ultrasound useful as a prescreen stratification tool for osteoporosis?

K Thomsen, D B Jepsen, L Matzen, A P Hermann, T Masud, J Ryg

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. QUS characteristics in Normal Population: a Mini Review and our experience.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

K ThomsenInstitute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Sdr. Boulevard 29 Entrance 112, 7th floor, 5000, Odense C, Denmark, katja.thomsen@rsyd.dk.
D B Jepsen
L Matzen
A P Hermann
T Masud
J Ryg

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K00414X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is attractive as a prescreening tool for osteoporosis, alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We investigated the literature of the usability of calcaneal QUS. We found large heterogeneity between studies and uncertainty about cutoff, device, and measured variable. Despite osteoporosis-related fractures being a major health issue, osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip or spine is currently the preferred method for diagnosis of osteoporosis, but the method is limited by low accessibility. QUS is a method for assessing bone alternative to DXA. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the usability of QUS as a prescreen stratification tool for assessment of osteoporosis. Studies that evaluated calcaneal QUS with DXA of the hip or spine as the gold standard was included. We extracted data from included studies to calculate number of DXAs saved and misclassification rates at cutoffs equal to high sensitivity and/or specificity. The number of DXAs saved and percentage of persons misclassified were measures of usability. We included 31 studies. Studies were heterogeneous regarding study characteristics. Analyses showed a wide spectrum of percentage of DXAs saved (2.7-68.8%) and misclassification rates (0-12.4%) depending on prescreen strategy and study characteristics, device, measured variable, and cutoff. Calcaneal QUS is potentially useful as a prescreen tool for assessment of osteoporosis. However, there is no consensus of device, variable, and cutoff. Overall, there is no sufficient evidence to recommend a specific cutoff for calcaneal QUS that provides a certainty level high enough to rule in or out osteoporosis. Calcaneal QUS in a prescreen or stratification algorithm must be based on device-specific cutoffs that are validated in the populations for which they are intended to be used.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBone DensityCalcaneusFemaleHumansMass ScreeningOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.