Dataset Information

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: UNLABELLED:We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern. INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis clinical fracture risk assessment instruments for predicting absolute fracture risk, or calibration, in populations other than their derivation cohorts. METHODS:We performed a systematic review, and MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple other literature sources were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and data extracted, including information about study participants, study design, potential sources of bias, and predicted and observed fracture probabilities. RESULTS:A total of 19,949 unique records were identified for review. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies. Six studies assessed the WHO's Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) instrument in five separate cohorts, and a variety of risk assessment instruments were evaluated in the remainder of the studies. Approximately half found good instrument calibration, with observed fracture probabilities being close to predicted probabilities for different risk categories. Studies that assessed the calibration of FRAX found mixed performance in different populations. A similar proportion of studies that evaluated simple risk assessment instruments (?5 variables) found good calibration when compared with studies that assessed complex instruments (>5 variables). Many studies had methodological features making them susceptible to bias. CONCLUSIONS:Few studies have evaluated the performance or calibration of osteoporosis fracture risk assessment instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts. Findings are mixed, and many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a possibility, raising concerns about use of these tools outside of the original derivation cohorts. Further studies are needed to assess the calibration of instruments in different populations prior to widespread use.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3962543 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Nayak S S Edwards D L DL Saleh A A AA Greenspan S L SL

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 20131009 1

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern.<h4>Introduction</h4>The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis cl ...[more]

PMID: 24105431

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith the broad availability of effective medications, identifying individuals bearing a higher risk for osteoporotic fractures has become an issue of major concern in modern medicine. In recent years various prognostic instruments have become available showing conflicting results regarding estimated risks for individual patients.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of current evidence and of opportunities for further research.Methodology/principal findingsSystematic review: We identified studies describing the development of instruments and all subsequent validations in electronic databases and reference lists of included studies. We screened for inclusion, read full papers and extracted data on salient clinical features, performance characteristics and quality in duplicate. Searches retrieved 5,275 records of which full texts of 167 papers were obtained after screening titles and abstract. We included 35 studies enrolling a total of 609,969 patients (median 2546) reporting on 31 derivations and 12 validations after assessing full texts. Median follow-up time was 4.1 years (IQR 3 to 7.7). Only four studies validated an instrument that was developed by another group. None of the existing instruments was validated more than once. The five most frequent included variables in the final model were age, body mass index, bone mass index, past history of falls, and maternal history of fractures. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate.ConclusionThere is a plethora of evidence available studying the association of risk profiles and the development of osteoporotic fractures. The small number of out-of-sample validations, the large variety of study characteristics, outcomes and follow-up periods impedes from deriving robust summaries and from conclusions regarding the clinical performance of many tools. First and foremost, future activity in this field should aim at reaching a consensus among clinical experts in respect to the existing instruments. Then we call for careful validations and expedient adaptations for local circumstances of the most promising candidates.

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

Project description:ImportanceMeasurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.ObjectivesTo present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.Evidence reviewThis systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.FindingsOf 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Conclusions and relevanceThe 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Dataset Information

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Publications

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets