ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2024
Assessing the utility of osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in patients undergoing hip surgery.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hip anteroposterior radiographic indices for effective osteoporosis screening in female patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- C-VBQ and CT hounsfield units for DXA-defined low bone mass screening and their associations with bone turnover markers.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Side-to-side differences in hip bone mineral density and associated morphological factors.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Enhancing osteoporosis management through risk assessment tools.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 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
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are instrumental in obtaining good outcomes of hip surgery. Measuring bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis. However, due to limited access to DXA, there is a need for a screening tool to identify patients at a higher risk of osteoporosis. We analyzed the potential utility of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) as a screening tool for osteoporosis. Methods: A total of 1378 female patients who underwent hip surgery at 8 institutions were analyzed. For each patient, the BMD of the proximal femoral region was measured by DXA (DXA-BMD), and the correlation with OSTA score (as a continuous variable) was assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the ability of OSTA score to predict osteoporosis. Lastly, the OSTA score was truncated to yield an integer (OSTA index) to clarify the percentage of patients with osteoporosis for each index. Results: DXA-BMD showed a strong correlation with OSTA (r = 0.683; P < 0.001). On ROC curve analysis, the optimal OSTA score cut-off value of -5.4 was associated with 73.8% sensitivity and 80.9% specificity for diagnosis of osteoporosis (area under the curve: 0.842). A decrease in the OSTA index by 1 unit was associated with a 7.3% increase in the probability of osteoporosis. Conclusions: OSTA is a potentially useful tool for screening osteoporosis in patients undergoing hip surgery. Our findings may help identify high-risk patients who require further investigation using DXA.
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.