BMJ  2003;326:1250-1251 (7 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1250

Primary care

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

¹ Bridge House Medical Centre, Scholars Lane, Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 6HE, ² Centre for Primary Health Care Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL

Introduction

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.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Comparison of assessment of risk factors and quantitative ultrasound scanning as predictors for osteoporosis on dual energy x ray absorptiometry scan

 

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.[Web of Science][Medline]
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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
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.[Abstract]
5. Royal College of Physicians of London. Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1999.

(Accepted April 10, 2003)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: Study methods and analysis require clarification

Joseph Wong, Vivien Wong, Tom Fahey, Peter Brindle, and Alastair Hay
BMJ 2003 327: 392. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Quantitative ultrasound scanning increases detection of osteoporosis
BMJ 2003 326: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Nayak, S., Olkin, I., Liu, H., Grabe, M., Gould, M. K., Allen, I. E., Owens, D. K., Bravata, D. M. (2006). Meta-analysis: accuracy of quantitative ultrasound for identifying patients with osteoporosis.. ANN INTERN MED 144: 832-841 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wong, J., Wong, V., Fahey, T., Brindle, P., Hay, A. (2003). Predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis: Study methods and analysis require clarification. BMJ 327: 392-392 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Biophysical-Semeiotic Detection of osteoporosis, even in early, clinically silent phase.

Sergio Stagnaro
bmj.com, 6 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Re: "Biophysical-Semeiotic Detection of osteoporosis..."

James Walmsley
bmj.com, 9 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Re: Re: "Biophysical-Semeiotic Detection of osteoporosis..."

Sergio Stagnaro
bmj.com, 11 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Combining a poor and a good test is not always appropriate.

Arturo Knol
bmj.com, 17 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Risk factors add little (if anything)

Matthew L Grove
bmj.com, 18 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Osteoporosis study requires clarification

Tom Fahey, et al.
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Re:Combining a poor and a good test is not always appropriate; Risk factors add little(if anything)

Jean Hodson
bmj.com, 23 Jun 2003 [Full text]

RE: Osteoporosis study requires clarification Dr Fahey and colleagues

Jean Hodson
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2003 [Full text]

QUS: Combining two screening tools does not reduce DXA referrals

Bo Abrahamsen, et al.
bmj.com, 3 Jul 2003 [Full text]

Re: QUS:combining two screening tools does not reduce DXA referrals.

Jean Hodson, et al.
bmj.com, 16 Jul 2003 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>