ReviewJournal of mid-life health
Screening Tools for Osteoporosis in India: Where Do We Place Them in Current Clinical Care?
Review in Journal of mid-life health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of osteoporosis and associated factors among people aged 50 years and older in the Madhesh province of Nepal: a community-based cross-sectional study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Article
- CircZNF367 promotes osteoclast differentiation and osteoporosis by interacting with FUS to maintain CRY2 mRNA stability.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Metabolome-Wide Mendelian Randomization Assessing the Causal Relationship Between Blood Metabolites and Bone Mineral Density.Calcified tissue international · 2023Article
- OSTA as a screening tool to predict osteoporosis in Indian postmenopausal women - a nationwide study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool: Its Scope and Role in General Clinical Practice.Cureus · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of osteoporosis is about 40%-50% in postmenopausal women and 20% in older men. The limited availability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners across the country calls for the presence of alternate risk assessment tools to identify those at high risk for osteoporosis. Some of the screening tools available for osteoporosis include Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool to assess fracture risk. Clinical parameters that may serve as surrogates include dentition and anthropometric indices. Although screening tools do not supplant the assessment of bone mineral density by DXA, they help identify individuals at high risk for osteoporosis who may be selectively referred for confirming the same.
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.