ArticleCureus2023
Use of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool as a Screening Tool for Osteoporosis in Saudi Postmenopausal Women.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osteoporosis evidence landscape to inform policy and practice: A comprehensive scoping review.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Review
- New Emerging Aspect of Herbal Extracts for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: Overview.Current rheumatology reviews · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis is commonly referred to as the "silent disease," as bone loss is gradual and asymptomatic. In older women and men, osteoporosis can lead to increased bone fragility, thus increasing the risk of fractures. These fractures are associated with healthcare costs, physical disabilities, impaired quality of life, and mortality. Therefore, the study's main objective was to assess the applicability of the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST) in predicting osteoporosis in Saudi postmenopausal women who are 60 years of age and older and to give a thorough understanding of how such a method can aid in the early diagnosis of osteoporosis in Saudi Arabia and give physicians enough time to treat it. Methods: This study was done at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where we included postmenopausal Saudi women 60 years of age and older who took the bone mineral density (BMD) test in the family medicine department. The approximate target population in this group, between the years 2016 and 2022, was 2969 patients. All data was taken from the BestCare database at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. Data were typed in an Excel sheet (Redmond, USA), then transferred to the R Studio software. The data collection method was chart review, so no informed consent was needed from patients. Names and medical record numbers were not stored. Results: The study included 2969 participants. According to the bone mineral density (BMD) T score results, 490 participants (16.5%) were normal, 1746 participants (58.8%) had osteopenia, and 733 participants (24.7%) suffered from osteoporosis. BMD T scores for normal, osteopenia, and osteoporosis participants were -0.6 (-0.9, -.3), -1.8 (-2.1), and -3 (-3.5, -2.7), consecutively. Estimated OSTI scores for those patients were 2 (0, 4), 1 (-2, 3), and -1 (-4, 1), consecutively. According to the OSTI score for normal participants, 4.29% were classified as being at high risk of osteoporosis. A high risk of osteoporosis was identified in 0.74% of those with osteopenia. 27.83% of osteoporosis patients were classified as being at high risk of osteoporosis. To differentiate normal individuals from those with osteopenia, the cutoff value with optimal sensitivity was 3.5. At such a cutoff value, the test sensitivity was 81.04%. To differentiate normal participants from those with osteoporosis, the cutoff value with optimal sensitivity was 2.5. At such a cutoff value, the test sensitivity was 86.49%. To differentiate osteopenia from osteoporosis patients, the cutoff threshold with optimal sensitivity was 1.5. At such a threshold, sensitivity was 78.44%. Conclusion: OSTA is a simple and validated tool that can identify subjects at increased risk of osteoporosis. Its use could facilitate a more cost-effective use of BMD; by avoiding measurements in low-risk groups.
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.