Skip to main content
PMC home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 2000 May 2;162(9):1289–1294.

Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry

S M Cadarette 1, S B Jaglal 1, N Kreiger 1, W J McIsaac 1, G A Darlington 1, J V Tu 1
PMCID: PMC1232411  PMID: 10813010

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although mass screening for osteoporosis is not recommended among postmenopausal women, there is no consensus on which women should undergo testing for low bone mineral density. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a clinical tool to help clinicians identify which women are at increased risk for osteoporosis and should therefore undergo further testing with bone densitometry. METHODS: Using Ontario baseline data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, we identified all cognitively normal women aged 45 years or more who had undergone testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at both the femoral neck and the lumbar spine (L1-L4). Participants who had a previous diagnosis of osteoporosis or were taking bone active medication other than ovarian hormones were excluded. The main outcome measure was low bone mineral density (T score of 2 or more standard deviations below the mean for young Canadian women) at either the femoral neck or the lumbar spine. Logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to identify the simplest algorithm that would identify women at increased risk for low bone mineral density. RESULTS: The study population comprised 1376 women, of whom 926 were allocated to the development of the tool and 450 to its validation. A simple algorithm based on age, weight and current estrogen use (yes or no) was developed. Validation of this 3-item Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) showed that the tool had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.3%-97.0%) and a specificity of 46.4% (95% CI 41.0%-51.8%) for selecting women with low bone mineral density. The sensitivity of the instrument for selecting women with osteoporosis was 94.4% (95% CI 83.7%-98.6%). Use of the ORAI represented a 38.7% reduction in DXA testing compared with screening all women in our study. INTERPRETATION: The ORAI accurately identifies the vast majority of women likely to have low bone mineral density and is effective in substantially decreasing the need for all women to undergo DXA testing.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (216.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cadarette S. M., Jaglal S. B., Murray T. M. Validation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) for patient selection for bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(1):85–90. doi: 10.1007/s001980050199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. DeLong E. R., DeLong D. M., Clarke-Pearson D. L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837–845. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Folstein M. F., Folstein S. E., McHugh P. R. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Genant H. K., Grampp S., Glüer C. C., Faulkner K. G., Jergas M., Engelke K., Hagiwara S., Van Kuijk C. Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res. 1994 Oct;9(10):1503–1514. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650091002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hanley J. A., McNeil B. J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29–36. doi: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harrell F. Regression coefficients and scoring rules. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;49(7):819–819. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00068-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jaglal S. B., Sherry P. G., Schatzker J. The impact and consequences of hip fracture in Ontario. Can J Surg. 1996 Apr;39(2):105–111. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jergas M., Glüer C. C. Assessment of fracture risk by bone density measurements. Semin Nucl Med. 1997 Jul;27(3):261–275. doi: 10.1016/s0001-2998(97)80028-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnell O. The socioeconomic burden of fractures: today and in the 21st century. Am J Med. 1997 Aug 18;103(2A):20S–26S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(97)90023-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Joseph P., Hughes D. Osteoporosis. Guidelines for general practitioners. Osteoporosis Australia. Aust Fam Physician. 1997 Oct;26(10):1181-5, 1188-91, 1194-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jönsson B. Targeting high-risk populations. Osteoporos Int. 1998;8 (Suppl 1):S13–S16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kanis J. A., Delmas P., Burckhardt P., Cooper C., Torgerson D. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(4):390–406. doi: 10.1007/BF01623782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kazanjian A., Green C., Bassett K. Bone densitometry: does the emperor have clothes? CMAJ. 1999 Jun 29;160(13):1822–1823. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Laupacis A., Sekar N., Stiell I. G. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997 Feb 12;277(6):488–494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lindsay R. The burden of osteoporosis: cost. Am J Med. 1995 Feb 27;98(2A):9S–11S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(05)80038-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lydick E., Cook K., Turpin J., Melton M., Stine R., Byrnes C. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Manag Care. 1998 Jan;4(1):37–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Marshall D., Johnell O., Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ. 1996 May 18;312(7041):1254–1259. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Meema H. E., Meema S. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: simple screening method for diagnosis before structural failure. Radiology. 1987 Aug;164(2):405–410. doi: 10.1148/radiology.164.2.3602377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Metz C. E. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978 Oct;8(4):283–298. doi: 10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaëlsson K., Bergström R., Mallmin H., Holmberg L., Wolk A., Ljunghall S. Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: selection by body composition. Osteoporos Int. 1996;6(2):120–126. doi: 10.1007/BF01623934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Millar W. J., Hill G. B. Hip fractures: mortality, morbidity and surgical treatment. Health Rep. 1994;6(3):323–337. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Papadimitropoulos E. A., Coyte P. C., Josse R. G., Greenwood C. E. Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada. CMAJ. 1997 Nov 15;157(10):1357–1363. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Papaioannou A., Parkinson W., Adachi J., O'Connor A., Jolly E. E., Tugwell P., Bédard M. Women's decisions about hormone replacement therapy after education and bone densitometry. CMAJ. 1998 Nov 17;159(10):1253–1257. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Torgerson D. J., Thomas R. E., Campbell M. K., Reid D. M. Randomized trial of osteoporosis screening. Use of hormone replacement therapy and quality-of-life results. Arch Intern Med. 1997 Oct 13;157(18):2121–2125. doi: 10.1001/archinte.157.18.2121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Tu J. V., Mazer C. D., Levinton C., Armstrong P. W., Naylor C. D. A predictive index for length of stay in the intensive care unit following cardiac surgery. CMAJ. 1994 Jul 15;151(2):177–185. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Tu J. V., Naylor C. D. Clinical prediction rules. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):743–744. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)89028-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Wasson J. H., Sox H. C., Neff R. K., Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985 Sep 26;313(13):793–799. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198509263131306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Weinstein L., Ullery B., Bourguignon C. A simple system to determine who needs osteoporosis screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 May;93(5 Pt 1):757–760. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00549-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES