Selection of risk assessment methods for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women with low-energy fractures: A comparison of fracture risk assessment tool, digital X-ray radiogrammetry, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Woisetschläger, Mischa; Chisalita, Simona; Vergara, Marta; Spångeus, Anna
• Is Part Of: SAGE open medicine. Volume 10(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: Osteoporosis -- bone mineral density -- DXA -- FRAX -- vertebral fractures -- diagnostic methods -- musculoskeletal conditions; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1177/20503121211073421
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2050-3121

Abstract

Objectives: Fracture liaison services are designed to identify patients needing osteoporosis treatment after a fracture. Some fracture liaison service designs involve a prescreening step, for example, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX ® ). Another possible prescreening tools are bone mass density assessment in the acute setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of prescreening tools. Methods: In the present prospective cohort study, women aged >55 years with a radius fracture were included. Patients were recruited at the emergency department after experiencing their fracture. All patients performed fracture risk assessment by fracture risk assessment tool, and bone mass density assessment by digital X-ray radiogrammetry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (prescreening steps) as well as full routine evaluation at the osteoporosis unit (endpoint). The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve. Results: Forty-one women were recruited (mean age: 70 ± 8 years). Of these, 54% fulfilled the treatment indication criteria of osteoporosis after a full examination. Fracture risk assessment tool without bone mass density (cutoff ⩾ 15%) for prescreening patients had a high sensitivity (90%) but a low area under the curve (0.50) and specificity (16%). The highest area under the curve (0.73) was found prescreening with bone mass density assessment (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or digital X-ray radiogrammetry) having a sensitivity of 59%–86% and specificity of 61%–90%. Conclusion: This study, though small, raises questions regarding the effectiveness of using a prescreening step in fracture liaison services for high-risk individuals. In this cohort, FRAX ® without bone mass density had a low precision, with a risk of both underestimating and overestimating patients requiring treatment. Bone mass density assessment in the acute setting could improve the precision of prescreening. Further investigations on the effectiveness and health economics of prescreening steps in fracture liaison services are needed.