Cargando…
A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
OBJECTIVES: To compare and assess the performance of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools for screening osteoporosis in Malaysian postmenopausal women. METHODS: Six osteoporosis risk assessments tools (the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE], the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Osteoporosis
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6838756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31728426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2019.09.001 |
_version_ | 1783467278622261248 |
---|---|
author | Toh, Li Shean Lai, Pauline Siew Mei Wu, David Bin-Chia Bell, Brian G. Dang, Cuu Phuong Linh Low, Bee Yean Wong, Kok Thong Guglielmi, Giuseppe Anderson, Claire |
author_facet | Toh, Li Shean Lai, Pauline Siew Mei Wu, David Bin-Chia Bell, Brian G. Dang, Cuu Phuong Linh Low, Bee Yean Wong, Kok Thong Guglielmi, Giuseppe Anderson, Claire |
author_sort | Toh, Li Shean |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare and assess the performance of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools for screening osteoporosis in Malaysian postmenopausal women. METHODS: Six osteoporosis risk assessments tools (the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE], the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, the Age Bulk One or Never Estrogen, the body weight, the Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool, and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians) were used to screen postmenopausal women who had not been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia. These women also underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to confirm the absence or presence of osteoporosis. RESULTS: A total of 164/224 participants were recruited (response rate, 73.2%), of which only 150/164 (91.5%) completed their DXA scan. Sixteen participants (10.7%) were found to have osteoporosis, whilst 65/150 (43.3%) were found to have osteopenia. Using precision-recall curves, the recall of the tools ranged from 0.50 to 1.00, whilst precision ranged from 0.04 to 0.14. The area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.027 to 0.161. The SCORE had the best balance between recall (1.00), precision (0.04–0.12), and AUC (0.072–0.161). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the SCORE had the best balance between recall, precision, and AUC among the 6 screening tools that were compared among Malaysian postmenopausal women. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6838756 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Korean Society of Osteoporosis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68387562019-11-14 A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Toh, Li Shean Lai, Pauline Siew Mei Wu, David Bin-Chia Bell, Brian G. Dang, Cuu Phuong Linh Low, Bee Yean Wong, Kok Thong Guglielmi, Giuseppe Anderson, Claire Osteoporos Sarcopenia Original Article OBJECTIVES: To compare and assess the performance of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools for screening osteoporosis in Malaysian postmenopausal women. METHODS: Six osteoporosis risk assessments tools (the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation [SCORE], the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, the Age Bulk One or Never Estrogen, the body weight, the Malaysian Osteoporosis Screening Tool, and the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians) were used to screen postmenopausal women who had not been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia. These women also underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to confirm the absence or presence of osteoporosis. RESULTS: A total of 164/224 participants were recruited (response rate, 73.2%), of which only 150/164 (91.5%) completed their DXA scan. Sixteen participants (10.7%) were found to have osteoporosis, whilst 65/150 (43.3%) were found to have osteopenia. Using precision-recall curves, the recall of the tools ranged from 0.50 to 1.00, whilst precision ranged from 0.04 to 0.14. The area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.027 to 0.161. The SCORE had the best balance between recall (1.00), precision (0.04–0.12), and AUC (0.072–0.161). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the SCORE had the best balance between recall, precision, and AUC among the 6 screening tools that were compared among Malaysian postmenopausal women. Korean Society of Osteoporosis 2019-09 2019-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6838756/ /pubmed/31728426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2019.09.001 Text en © 2019 The Korean Society of Osteoporosis. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Toh, Li Shean Lai, Pauline Siew Mei Wu, David Bin-Chia Bell, Brian G. Dang, Cuu Phuong Linh Low, Bee Yean Wong, Kok Thong Guglielmi, Giuseppe Anderson, Claire A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title | A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title_full | A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title_fullStr | A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title_short | A comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
title_sort | comparison of 6 osteoporosis risk assessment tools among postmenopausal women in kuala lumpur, malaysia |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6838756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31728426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2019.09.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tohlishean acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT laipaulinesiewmei acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT wudavidbinchia acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT bellbriang acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT dangcuuphuonglinh acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT lowbeeyean acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT wongkokthong acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT guglielmigiuseppe acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT andersonclaire acomparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT tohlishean comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT laipaulinesiewmei comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT wudavidbinchia comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT bellbriang comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT dangcuuphuonglinh comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT lowbeeyean comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT wongkokthong comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT guglielmigiuseppe comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia AT andersonclaire comparisonof6osteoporosisriskassessmenttoolsamongpostmenopausalwomeninkualalumpurmalaysia |