ArticleKorean journal of family medicine2016
Evaluation of the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis as a Clinical Tool to Identify the Risk of Osteoporosis in Korean Men by Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data.
Article in Korean journal of family medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Osteoporosis risk and its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among the elderly: a 16-year nationwide cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Association between body mass index and fragility fracture in postmenopausal women: a cross-sectional study using Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2009 (KNHANES IV).BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Prognostic performance of Predictive Index for Osteoporosis and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians in the identification of individuals high-risk for osteoporosis.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2020Article
- [Evaluation of screening accuracy on osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians and its cut-off value in healthy physical examination population].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously proposed the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis as a new index to identify men who require bone mineral density measurement. However, the previous study had limitations such as a single-center design and small sample size. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis using the nationally representative data of the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
methodsParticipants underwent bone mineral density measurements via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to obtain optimal cut-off points for the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians, and the predictability of osteoporosis for the 2 indices was compared.
resultsBoth indices were useful clinical tools for identifying osteoporosis risk in Korean men. The optimal cut-off value for the Predictive Index for Osteoporosis was 1.07 (sensitivity, 67.6%; specificity, 72.7%; area under the curve, 0.743). When using a cut-off point of 0.5 for the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians, the sensitivity and specificity were 71.9% and 64.0%, respectively, and the area under the curve was 0.737.
conclusionThe Predictive Index for Osteoporosis was as useful as the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians as a screening index to identify candidates for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry among men aged 50-69 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.