Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39581985›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Simple clinical predictors for making directive decisions in osteoporosis screening for women: a cross-sectional study.

Jirapong Leeyaphan, Karn Rojjananukulpong, Piyapong Intarasompun, Yuthasak Peerakul

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jirapong LeeyaphanBamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, 38 Talat Khwan, Mueang Nonthaburi, Nonthaburi, 11000, Thailand. lekortho@gmail.com.
Karn RojjananukulpongBamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, 38 Talat Khwan, Mueang Nonthaburi, Nonthaburi, 11000, Thailand.
Piyapong IntarasompunBamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, 38 Talat Khwan, Mueang Nonthaburi, Nonthaburi, 11000, Thailand.
Yuthasak PeerakulBamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, 38 Talat Khwan, Mueang Nonthaburi, Nonthaburi, 11000, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis screening strategies vary according to a country's policies. Simple and highly accurate diagnostic predictors should be developed and utilized. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the diagnostic performances of weight, body mass index (BMI), and age for osteoporosis. Moreover, this study proposes and validates new cutoff values for these indicators.

methodsWomen aged 50 years or older who underwent Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and did not receive any treatment for osteoporosis were enrolled. Age, weight, and BMI were used to analyze the diagnostic models. New cutoff values were proposed using the maximum Youden index value.

resultsA total of 1598 women were classified into normal bone mineral density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis groups. The mean age, weight, and BMI were 73.2 years, 53.6 kg, and 23.2 kg/m

conclusionsThis study proposes new cutoff values for simple clinical predictors to facilitate directive decision-making in osteoporosis screening in women. Weight, which are easily obtained in clinical practice, are the most effective predictors of osteoporosis screening.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBody Mass IndexMass ScreeningOsteoporosisAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBody WeightBone DensityClinical Decision-MakingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsAgeBody mass indexBody weightBone mineral densityOsteoporosisWomen

Identifiers

PMID39581985
PMCPMC11585944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.