ArticleRheumatology international2015
Clinical performance of seven prescreening tools for osteoporosis in Iranian postmenopausal women.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to evaluate seven prescreening osteoporosis models in postmenopausal Iranian women. This study was performed on 8644 postmenopausal women who have been referred for bone mineral densitometry (BMD) in BMD center of Shariati hospital in Tehran between 2001 and 2011. Diagnostic properties of seven prescreening instruments were evaluated. With regard to area under curve (AUC), these models have low accuracy (AUC ≤ 0.65). Considering only femoral neck or total femur area, these models had low accuracy but were more sensitive. Except for three models with sensitivities of ≤65 % in both osteoporosis and fracture threshold, other models were around 70 % sensitive. However, these models were not considered clinically useful regarding their positive predictive values (PPV) especially in BMDs ≤02.5. With regard to different measures of diagnostic property, none of these models were good screening tools for osteoporosis or fracture threshold. Although some of them are sensitive, considering other measures such as PPV indicates that they are not completely useful for clinical use. Attempts should be made for developing newer prescreening methods and calibration of the existing models with regard to the studied population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25980683What 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.