ArticleRheumatology international2016
Factors associated with the accuracy of self-reported osteoporosis in the community.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population: insights from linked healthcare claims and health interview survey data used for surveillance.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Psychological Disorders Linked to Osteoporosis Diagnoses in a Population-Based Cohort Study of Middle and Older Age United States Adults.The Gerontologist · 2024Article
- An update of the prevalence of osteoporosis, fracture risk factors, and medication use among community-dwelling older adults: results from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA).Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Comparison of osteoporosis in US adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the agreement between self-reported osteoporosis and bone mineral density (BMD) results through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using data from a national representative sample taken from the US communities. Six-year data from the continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and 2009-2010 were merged. Participants included adults 50 years of age or older whose data appeared in both questionnaire and medical examination data files. Self-reported osteoporosis was defined by an affirmative response to a question in the osteoporosis questionnaire then compared with BMD-defined osteoporosis, defined by BMD values taken from the examination data. Agreement between self-reported osteoporosis and DXA results were low. Kappa was only 0.24 (95 % confidence interval = 0.21-0.27), and sensitivity and positive predictive value were 28.0 and 40.8 %, respectively. When stratified by gender or age group, agreement remained poor. Self-report of osteoporosis would not be suitable for accurate prevalence estimates for osteoporosis regardless of gender or age group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27714430What 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.