The Rheumatologist
COVID-19 News
  • Connect with us:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Feed
  • Home
  • Conditions
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • SLE (Lupus)
    • Crystal Arthritis
      • Gout Resource Center
    • Spondyloarthritis
    • Osteoarthritis
    • Soft Tissue Pain
    • Scleroderma
    • Vasculitis
    • Systemic Inflammatory Syndromes
    • Guidelines
  • Resource Centers
    • Ankylosing Spondylitis Resource Center
    • Gout Resource Center
    • Psoriatic Arthritis Resource Center
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis Resource Center
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Resource Center
  • Drug Updates
    • Biologics & Biosimilars
    • DMARDs & Immunosuppressives
    • Topical Drugs
    • Analgesics
    • Safety
    • Pharma Co. News
  • Professional Topics
    • Ethics
    • Legal
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Career Development
      • Certification
      • Education & Training
    • Awards
    • Profiles
    • President’s Perspective
    • Rheuminations
    • Interprofessional Perspective
  • Practice Management
    • Billing/Coding
    • Quality Assurance/Improvement
    • Workforce
    • Facility
    • Patient Perspective
    • Electronic Health Records
    • Apps
    • Information Technology
    • From the College
    • Multimedia
      • Audio
      • Video
  • Resources
    • Issue Archives
    • ACR Convergence
      • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Resource Center
      • Rheumatoid Arthritis Resource Center
      • Gout Resource Center
      • Abstracts
      • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence Home
    • American College of Rheumatology
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Research Reviews
    • ACR Journals
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
    • Rheumatology Image Library
    • Treatment Guidelines
    • Rheumatology Research Foundation
    • Events
  • About Us
    • Mission/Vision
    • Meet the Authors
    • Meet the Editors
    • Contribute to The Rheumatologist
    • Subscription
    • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Search
You are here: Home / Articles / BMI Feasible As Pre-Screening Tool for Osteoporosis in Women

BMI Feasible As Pre-Screening Tool for Osteoporosis in Women

October 24, 2015 • By Larry Hand

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version / Save PDF

The mean 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture among the women, as scored by FRAX, without bone mineral density consideration, was 7.2%. The risks with SCORE, ORAI and OST were 7.1%, 8.1%, and 2.8%, respectively, the researchers report online Oct. 3 in Maturitas.

You Might Also Like
  • Routine Osteoporosis Screening in Men Proves Cost-Effective
  • Pulse-Echo Ultrasound Useful for Osteoporosis Screening
  • RA Patients May Not Receive Needed Osteoporosis Screening & Treatment

Using Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, the researchers identified an optimal BMI cut-off point of 27.7 predicting osteoporosis with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 38% (AUC=0.73). The USPSTF modality had the lowest sensitivity of 24%.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

The sensitivity for SCORE was 92% (AUC 0.75), for OST 79%, for RF 66% and for ORAI 74%.

The USPSTF method would refer 17% of the women for BMD testing, compared with 68% for SCORE, 47% for OST, 40% for RF, 41% for ORAI and 64% for BMI alone.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Asked if the results point to a need for practice change, Dr. Jiang said, “No, since the better prescreening tool is yet to be established, and due to inadequate sample size, this study does not have adequate power to detect significance in predictive performance between BMI alone (<28) and other current prescreening modalities.”

Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall, professor of medicine at David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Reuters Health by email, “The results suggest that the USPSTF screening guidelines may require reconsideration with the goal of better identifying women who would be candidates for osteoporosis medication. Osteoporosis medications have been proven efficacious to reduce fractures in women with bone density in the osteoporosis range.”

Dr. Crandall and colleagues published a study last year that compared the performance of various pre-screening strategies for osteoporosis.

ad goes here:advert-3
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

“The USPSTF strategy only identified about one-quarter of women aged 50-64 years who actually went on to fracture during 10 years of observation,” she said. “Those findings do not support use of the USPSTF guideline strategy to identify younger postmenopausal women who are at higher risk of fracture.”

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Filed Under: Conditions Tagged With: BMI, Fractures, Osteoporosis, postmenopause, Women

You Might Also Like:
  • Routine Osteoporosis Screening in Men Proves Cost-Effective
  • Pulse-Echo Ultrasound Useful for Osteoporosis Screening
  • RA Patients May Not Receive Needed Osteoporosis Screening & Treatment
  • Osteoporosis Screening Is Underutilized Despite Recommendations

American College of Rheumatology

Visit the official website for the American College of Rheumatology.

Visit the ACR »

ACR Convergence

Don’t miss rheumatology’s premier scientific meeting for anyone involved in research or the delivery of rheumatologic care or services.

Visit the ACR Convergence site »

Rheumatology Research Foundation

The Foundation is the largest private funding source for rheumatology research and training in the U.S.

Learn more »

The Rheumatologist newsmagazine reports on issues and trends in the management and treatment of rheumatic diseases. The Rheumatologist reaches 11,500 rheumatologists, internists, orthopedic surgeons, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who practice, research, or teach in the field of rheumatology.

About Us / Contact Us / Advertise / Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

  • Connect with us:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Feed

Copyright © 2006–2021 American College of Rheumatology. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1931-3268 (print)
ISSN 1931-3209 (online)

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.