ArticleJournal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions2024
Comparative Evaluation of Osteoporosis Clinical Risk Assessment Tools in Postmenopausal Women Aged 50-64.
Article in Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions, 2024. 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.
- Assessing deep learning model performance in osteoporosis screening with lumbar spine radiographs.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2026Article
- A high FT3 level might protect bone mineral density among euthyroid type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.Endocrine connections · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the performance of five osteoporosis clinical risk assessment tools (SCORE, ORAI, ABONE, OST and OSIRIS), in a subgroup of young postmenopausal women aged 50-64, who underwent DXA screening.
methodsThe above-mentioned osteoporosis risk assessment tools were calculated for 258 young postmenopausal women (aged 50-64) who had a DXA scan, in Crete/Greece.
resultsPatients with a T-score ≤ -2.5 or a T-score ≤ -2.0 had a statistically significant higher value of SCORE, ORAI and ABONE and a lower value of OST, OSIRIS, and OSIRIS Adjusted Score, compared to the patients with T-score > -2.5 and T-score > -2.0, respectively. ORAI (T-score≤ -2.0) and OST (T-score≤ -2.5) demonstrated the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity. CHAID analysis further confirmed the relative significance of the OST tool in the osteoporosis group (T-score≤ -2.5 vs. T-score > -2.5), for a cut-off of 2.8. In the other group (T-score ≤ -2.0 vs T-score > -2.0) the ORAI score showed a significantly important relationship for a cut-off of 8.
conclusionOST, despite its performance limitations, correlates best with the DXA measurements of young (50-64), postmenopausal osteoporotic women, a fact which may suggest its' potential role as a screening tool in this specific age group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39616507PMC11609562What 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.