Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2003 Jun 7;326(7401):1250–1251. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1250

Quantitative ultrasound and risk factor enquiry as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: comparative study in primary care

Jean Hodson 1, Jen Marsh 2
PMCID: PMC161556  PMID: 12791742

The current recommendation for primary care physicians to identify women at high risk of osteoporosis relies on the assessment of clinical risk factors as a selection method for referral for dual energy x ray absorptiometry (DXA).1 DXA remains the “gold standard” diagnostic investigation for osteoporosis, but the restrictions of cost and availability necessitate an effective selection process. Little evidence exists about the value of enquiring about risk factors in primary care as a selection method, but it has been reported to be a poor predictor of low bone mass.2 Quantitative ultrasound scanning can be used to predict risk of osteoporotic fracture.3 Preliminary findings indicate that ultrasound scanning is as good as clinical risk factors for prediction of osteoporosis, but its role in primary care has yet to be clarified.4 We compared these selection methods in postmenopausal women in a primary care setting.

Participants, methods, and results

We assessed 200 consecutive women aged 60-69 years attending a primary care clinic between April 2000 and July 2002. Seven general practices in South Warwickshire referred women because of perceived risk (48%) or interest (52%). An experienced practice nurse completed a risk factor questionnaire, calculated body mass index, and did a heel ultrasound scan (Sahara densitometer). One general practitioner interviewed the women to clarify details and referred the women for DXA scanning of the hip and lumbar spine at a local hospital.

We deemed risk factor status to be positive if at least one criterion for referral for DXA according to the 1999 Royal College of Physicians' guidelines was present.5 We expressed quantitative ultrasound measurement as a T score and chose the level defining the lowest quarter of readings to assess sensitivity and specificity, as no agreed cut-off point for referral for DXA exists.

We obtained complete data for 190 women, of whom 31 (16.3%) had osteoporosis on DXA scan. We classified 113 (59.5%) women as risk factor positive—body mass index < 19 kg/m2 (5), height loss > 2 inches (5 cm) or kyphosis (5), maternal hip fracture (20), early menopause or hysterectomy < 45 years (40), secondary amenorrhoea > 1 year (5), prednisolone 7.5 mg > 6 months (10), fracture after age 50 (43), x ray osteopenia (28), medical condition associated with increased risk of osteoporosis (13). Forty nine (25.8%) women had an ultrasound reading below T = - 1.7.

Risk factor enquiry was a poor predictor. Only 19% of women with risk factors had osteoporosis, and this method failed to identify one third of the osteoporotic women (table). However, ultrasound scanning with a cut-off point of T = - 1.7 almost doubled specificity compared with risk factors (McNemar's test P=0.006, 95% confidence interval 31% to 49%) for roughly the same sensitivity. Adding an ultrasound scan to risk factors improved sensitivity by 22% (P=0.015, 8% to 37%) and reduced specificity by 4% (P=0.015, - 8% to - 1%). This enabled identification of 90% of the women with osteoporosis and increased prediction for women without the condition.

Table 1.

Comparison of assessment of risk factors and quantitative ultrasound scanning as predictors for osteoporosis on dual energy x ray absorptiometry scan

Risk factors
Ultrasound T score < −1.7
Risk factors, T score < −1.7, or both
Measures of accuracy No % (95% CI) No % (95% CI) No % (95% CI)
Sensitivity 21/31 68 (50 to 82) 22/31 71 (54 to 85) 28/31 90 (77 to 98)
Specificity 67/159 42 (35 to 50) 132/159 83 (77 to 88) 60/159 38 (30 to 45)
Positive predictive value 21/113 19 (12 to 26) 22/49 45 (32 to 59) 28/127 22 (15 to 30)
Negative predictive value 67/77 87 (78 to 93) 132/141 94 (89 to 97) 60/63 95 (88 to 99)

Comment

The combination of quantitative ultrasound scanning and enquiry about risk factors detected more cases of osteoporosis and had slightly better predictive values than risk factors alone. Ultrasound alone had much better specificity than risk factors alone. However, good clinical practice requires an overall assessment of risk for osteoporosis rather than ultrasound scanning as a stand alone procedure. Ultrasound scanning is a simple, quick, non-ionising, portable, and inexpensive investigation. It provides general practitioners with an opportunity to improve on the current method of identification of risk of osteoporosis and selection for DXA and is an ideal test for practice nurses to perform in a nurse led osteoporosis clinic. Further evaluation of quantitative ultrasound scanning and assessment of its cost effectiveness are warranted.

We thank practice nurses Sue Mills and Debbie Gray at Bridge House for performing clinic assessments and Anthony Mander, gynaecologist at the University of Manchester, for his helpful comments on the paper.

Contributors: JH planned and conducted the study and collected data. JM did the statistical analysis. Both authors interpreted the data, prepared the manuscript, and are guarantors for the paper.

Funding: Partly supported by a research grant from the Centre for Primary Health Care Studies at the University of Warwick.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethical approval: Warwickshire research ethics committee approved the study.

References

  • 1.Department of Health. National service framework for older people. London: Stationery Office, 2001.
  • 2.Versluis RG, Papapoulos SE, de Bock GH, Zwinderman AH, Petri H, van de Ven CM, et al. Clinical risk factors as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51: 806-10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996;312; 1254-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stewart A, Reid DM. Quantitative ultrasound or clinical risk factors—which best identifies women at risk of osteoporosis? Br J Radiol 2000;73: 165-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Royal College of Physicians of London. Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1999.

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES