Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4401628 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

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 20150203 5

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>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 instr ...[more]

PMID: 25644147

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:The primary aim of this study was to evaluate computed tomography (CT)-based bone density analysis at the level of thoracic vertebra 12 (Th12) as a screening method for decreased bone density in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Interobserver variability was analyzed. Secondary aims were to assess the prevalence of CT-based low bone density upon ICU admission in a cohort of COVID-19 patients and to assess the potential effect of long-term ICU stay on bone density in these patients. Retrospective single-center cohort study. ICU of the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. Patients admitted to the ICU of the LUMC between March 1st, 2020 and February 1st, 2022 with a diagnosis of COVID-19, and a length of ICU stay of ≥ 21 days. In the included patients both baseline chest CT scans (obtained upon ICU admission) and follow-up chest CT scans (obtained ≥ 21 days after ICU admission) were available for analysis. A total of 118 CT scans in 38 patients were analyzed. There was a good interobserver variability, with an overall mean absolute difference (between measurements of three observers) of 9.7 Hounsfield Units (HU) and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). The effect of intravenous contrast administration on bone density measurements was small (+ 7.5 HU (95% CI 3.4-11.5 HU)) higher in contrast enhanced CT images compared to non contrast enhanced CT images). Thirty-seven percent of patients had a bone density < 140 HU, suggestive of osteoporosis. No significant difference was found between bone density upon ICU admission and bone density at follow-up (≥ 21 days after ICU admission). Vertebral CT-based bone density analysis using routine CT scans is an easily applicable method to identify ICU patients with decreased bone density, which could enable enrollment in osteoporosis prevention programs. A high prevalence of low bone density was found in our cohort of ICU patients. There were no changes observed in bone density between baseline and follow-up measurements.

Project description:Background: Microscopic colitis (MC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the large bowel characterized by watery diarrhea, substantially decreasing the patient’s quality of life. Scarce data suggest that MC is associated with low bone density (LBD). Objectives: We aimed to assess whether MC is a risk factor for LBD and the proportion of patients with MC having LBD. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting bone density measurements in MC patients. Data Sources and Methods: We systematically searched five databases from inception to October 16, 2021 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science). We used the random-effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and pooled event rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To ascertain the quality of evidence of our outcomes, we followed the recommendations of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. Results: The systematic search yielded a total of 3046 articles. Four articles were eligible for quantitative synthesis. All of them used age- and sex-matched controls to evaluate LBD occurrence among patients with MC. The odds of having LBD were twofold increased (OR = 2.13, CI: 1.42–3.20) in the presence of MC, the odds of osteopenia occurrence were 2.4 (OR = 2.45, CI: 1.11–5.41), and of osteoporosis 1.4 (OR = 1.42, CI: 0.65–3.12). The proportion of LBD was 0.68 (CI: 0.56–0.78), osteopenia was 0.51 (CI: 0.43–0.58), and osteoporosis was 0.11 (CI: 0.07–0.16) among the MC population. Our findings’ certainty of the evidence was very low following the GRADEPro guideline. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that MC is associated with a twofold risk for LBD. Based on our findings, we suggest screening patients for bone mineral density upon diagnosis of MC. Further prospective studies with higher patient numbers and longer follow-up periods on this topic are needed. Registration: Our protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021283392). Plain language summary Investigating microscopic colitis as a risk factor for having low bone density in a literature overview and statistical approach Microscopic colitis (MC) is an underdiagnosed chronic inflammatory large bowel disease, characterized by watery diarrhea, which substantially impacts the patient’s quality of life. The etiology of MC is still unclear but is suspected to be multifactorial. Moreover, low bone density (LBD) has been associated with the disease. Scarce data investigate the relationship of MC with LBD, although they share common risk factors, like advanced age and female sex. LBD has two forms; the mild is osteopenia and the severe form is osteoporosis. The most severe complications of osteoporosis are osteoporotic fractures, which can culminate in a life-threatening state and amplify the hospital expenses burden. Our primary aim was to assess if MC increases the risk of LBD. Furthermore, we estimated the proportions of bone mineral changes in the MC population. Following a rigorous methodology, our data suggest that MC doubles the odds of LBD. Furthermore, we have shown that two-thirds of the MC population suffers from bone density decrease, half of them have osteopenia, and one in 10 MC patients has osteoporosis. In conclusion, we highly suggest screening patients with MC for bone mineral density at the moment of diagnosis.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets