ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025
Performance and interventional cutoffs of osteoporosis self-assessment tools in the community: implications for screening and early referral.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. 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.
- Ten-year re-validation of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) in Taiwan.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- An online non-radiographic osteoporosis prediction calculator constructed using interpretable machine learning.BioData mining · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Patients with lower bone mineral density (BMD) face an increased risk of fragile fractures and should be actively screened to mitigate this vulnerability. Given the limitations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), it is possible to identify high-risk osteoporosis groups through simple self-assessment tools for further BMD measurements. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the sex- and age-specific sensitivity and specificity of these simple tools for predicting osteoporosis risk to enhance the overall management of osteoporosis risk in the community.
methodsThis study enrolled subjects surveyed from epidemiological cohorts in Taiwan. Osteoporosis risk was assessed via the OSTA (for Asian women), and the OSTAi and MOSTAi (for Taiwanese women and men). Osteoporosis was defined as the lowest T-score ≤ - 2.5 based on the BMD of the lumbar spine and hip, as measured via DXA. The OSTAi and MOSTAi algorithms were used to analyze the self-assessment performance via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) analyses.
resultsA total of 1976 participants were enrolled in the study; 52.8% were women, with a mean age of 65.4 years. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting osteoporosis were as follows: MOSTAi (sensitivity/specificity = 0.53/0.72), OSTA (0.71/0.77), and OSTAi (0.77/0.73). The eOSTAi demonstrated favorable sensitivity in women, with AUCs of 0.8200 for osteoporosis and 0.7643 for osteopenia. In men, eMOSTAi showed fair sensitivity (AUC = 0.6690 for osteoporosis and 0.5626 for osteopenia). The cutoffs of the eOSTAi and eMOSTAi for detecting osteoporosis decreased with age.
conclusionThe cutoff of OSTAi is suitable for self-assessment of osteoporosis in Taiwanese women. However, for men, the cutoff of MOSTAi may need to be adjusted. Considering the differences in the prevalence of osteoporosis in the community, it is recommended that the cutoff be set according to gender and age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40833502What 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.