ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2016
Risk assessment instruments for screening bone mineral density in a Mediterranean population.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparative Evaluation of Osteoporosis Clinical Risk Assessment Tools in Postmenopausal Women Aged 50-64.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the power of six osteoporosis-screening instruments in women in a Mediterranean country.
methodsData concerning several osteoporosis risk factors were prospectively collected from 1000 postmenopausal women aged 42-87 years who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) screening. Six osteoporosis risk factor screening tools were applied to this sample to evaluate their performance and choose the most appropriate tool for the study population.
resultsThe most important screening tool for osteoporosis status was the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation, which had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.678, a sensitivity of 72%, and a specificity of 72%, with a cut-off point of 20.75. The most important screening tool for osteoporosis risk was the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool, which had an AUC of 0.643, a sensitivity of 77%, and a specificity of 46%, with a cut-off point of -2.9.
conclusionSome commonly used clinical risk instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for distinguishing individuals with DEXA-ascertained osteoporosis or reduced bone mineral density.
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.