Further validation of a questionnaire to identify women likely to have low bone density

Screening for Osteoporosis Risk Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Due to potential health-related consequences of osteoporosis (OP), health care providers who do not order imaging, such as physical therapists, should be aware of OP screening tools that identify individuals who need medical and rehabilitation care. However, current knowledge and guidance on screening tools is limited. Therefore, we explored OP screening tools that are appropriate and feasible for physical therapy practice, and evaluated tools' effectiveness by examining their clinimetric properties.

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, PEDro, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Articles were included if the study population was 50 years and older, had a diagnosis of OP, if the screening tool was within the scope of physical therapy practice, and was compared to either a known diagnosis of OP or bone densitometry scan results. Included articles underwent multiple reviews for inclusion and exclusion, with each review round having a different randomly selected pair of reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles for participant demographics, outcome measures, cut-off values, and clinimetric properties. Results were categorized with positive and negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) based on the magnitude of change in the probability of having or not having OP.

RESULTS

+LRs ranged from 0.15 to 20.21, with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) having a large shift in posttest probability. -LRs ranged from 0.03 to 1.00, with the FRAX, Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Scores, Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation having a large shift in posttest probability.

CONCLUSION

Tools with moderate-large shift for both +LR and -LR recommended for use are: (1) OST; (2) FRAX; and (3) SOF. The variability in cut-off scores and clinimetric properties based on gender, age, and race/ethnicities made it impossible to provide one specific recommendation for an OP screening tool. Future research should focus on OP risk prediction among males and racial and ethnic groups.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for osteoporosis or low bone density

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for DXA-determined osteoporosis or low bone density. Commonly evaluated risk instruments showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% at particular thresholds within various populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to systematically review the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-determined osteoporosis or low bone density.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Multiple literature sources were searched, and data extracted and analyzed from included references.

RESULTS

One hundred eight references met inclusion criteria. Studies assessed many instruments in 34 countries, most commonly the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) instrument, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), and body weight criteria. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of <1 to identify US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the femoral neck provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 89% (95%CI 82-96%) and 41% (95%CI 23-59%), respectively. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of 3 to identify US men with osteoporosis at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 88% (95%CI 79-97%) and 55% (95%CI 42-68%), respectively. Frequently evaluated instruments each had thresholds and populations for which sensitivity for osteoporosis or low bone mass detection approached or exceeded 90% but always with a trade-off of relatively low specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly evaluated clinical risk assessment instruments each showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% for identifying individuals with DXA-determined osteoporosis or low BMD at certain thresholds in different populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

Risk assessment tools to identify women with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: complexity or simplicity? A systematic review

A huge number of risk assessment tools have been developed. Far from all have been validated in external studies, more of them have absence of methodological and transparent evidence, and few are integrated in national guidelines. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to provide an overview of existing valid and reliable risk assessment tools for prediction of osteoporotic fractures. Additionally, we aimed to determine if the performance of each tool was sufficient for practical use, and last, to examine whether the complexity of the tools influenced their discriminative power. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for papers and evaluated these with respect to methodological quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist. A total of 48 tools were identified; 20 had been externally validated, however, only six tools had been tested more than once in a population-based setting with acceptable methodological quality. None of the tools performed consistently better than the others and simple tools (i.e., the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool [OST], Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument [ORAI], and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator [Garvan]) often did as well or better than more complex tools (i.e., Simple Calculated Risk Estimation Score [SCORE], WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX], and Qfracture). No studies determined the effectiveness of tools in selecting patients for therapy and thus improving fracture outcomes. High-quality studies in randomized design with population-based cohorts with different case mixes are needed.

Comparison of questionnaire and quantitative ultrasound techniques as screening tools for DXA

The aim of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of different techniques and their ability to act as screening tools in relation to dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a group of 208 postmenopausal women. In this study we examined eight screening systems for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, the osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST), the osteoporosis risk assessment instrument (ORAI), the osteoporosis index of risk (OSIRIS), a risk index derived using data from the study of osteoporotic fractures (SOFSURF), the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE), patient body weight (pBW), along with two ultrasound based systems, the Sunlight Omnisense (Sunlight Medical, Rehovot, Israel) and the CUBA Clinical (McCue plc, Winchester, UK). The sensitivity and specificity of the different techniques in relation to DXA were plotted as receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves at three different levels (DXA T-score -2.5 osteoporosis, -2 and -1 osteopenia). The areas under the curves (AUC) were calculated and showed broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) at the calcaneus to provide consistently the highest AUC (0.77-0.81). The velocity of sound (VOS) of the calcaneus (AUC=0.72-0.76) was equally good, but was out-performed by some of the questionnaire systems (AUC=0.66-0.79). Both the questionnaire systems and the CUBA Clinical out-perform the Sunlight Omnisense (AUC=0.58-0.7), which showed comparable performance with body weight (AUC=0.66-0.69). The results show that QUS is capable of selecting patients with low bone density as measured by DXA. A patient displaying a low QUS value should be followed up with a DXA scan to confirm the diagnosis.

Clinical risk factor evaluation to defer postmenopausal women from bone mineral density measurement: an Italian study

To identify clinical risk factors (CRFs) best related to low bone mineral density (BMD) and to assess their abilityin deferring women from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), 1187 Italian postmenopausal women, dividedinto development (709) and validation (478) groups, were studied. CRFs were investigated by questionnaire. DXAwas performed at the spine and femoral neck. A T-score < -2.5 at both measurement sites classified those with lowBMD. In the development group, using the logistic regression, the CRFs best predicting low BMD were years sincemenopause, age at menarche, weight, previous fracture, and muscle weakness. The predicted probability of low BMD(PPL-BMD), calculated by the logistic equation, was used to build receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves(area = 0.786, standard error [SE] = 0.017) on diagnosed BMD status. The PPL-BMD cutoff below which to deferwomen from DXA was set corresponding to the ROC curve sensitivity of 99%, 98%, and 97%. The coefficients ofthe logistic regression were then used to calculate the PPL-BMD of the validation group. In the validation group, theoverall ability of CRFs to predict low BMD (ROC area = 0.744, SE = 0.023) was not different from that of the developmentgroup. At the PPL-BMD cutoff of 0.132, the percentage of DXA-deferred cases (14.5% vs 19.0%) and low-BMD-missed cases (0.7% vs 1.7%) was similar in both groups. The rates of DXA-deferred women by CRFs arereproducible and this tool should be useful in clinical practice.