ArticleCalcified tissue international2024
Validation of Ten Osteoporosis Screening Tools in Rural Communities of Taiwan.
Article in Calcified tissue international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Potential impact of obstetric history on postmenopausal fragility fracture risk: A reassessment of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- Performance of USPSTF-recommended osteoporosis risk assessment tools in identifying osteoporosis in older men: a multicentre retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with osteoporosis are at risk of fractures, which can lead to immobility and reduced quality of life. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for preventing fractures, but many patients are not diagnosed until after a fracture has occurred. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 10 osteoporosis screening tools (OSTs) in rural communities of Taiwan. In this prospective study, a total of 567 senior citizens from rural communities underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and ten OSTs were administered. Discrimination analysis was performed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Primary outcomes included area under curve (AUC) value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The DXA examination revealed that 63.0% of females and 22.4% of males had osteoporosis. Among females, Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) presented the best AUC value with 0.71 (0.66-0.76) and 0.70 (0.66-0.75), respectively. Among males, BWC had the best AUC value of 0.77 (0.67-0.86), followed by OSTA, Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE), and OSIRIS. OSTA and OSIRIS showed acceptable performance in both genders. The specificity of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX-H), SCORE, National Osteoporosis Foundation Score, OSIRIS, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, Age, Bulk, One or Never Estrogen (ABONE), and Body weight criteria increased in both genders after applying the optimum cut-off. Considering it high AUC and simplicity of use, OSTA appeared to be the recommended tool for seniors of both genders among the ten OSTs. This study provides a viable reference for future development of OSTs in Taiwan. Further adjustment according to epidemiological data and risk factors is recommended while applying OSTs to different cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39155291What 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.