Mauck Karen F, Cuddihy Maria-Teresa, Atkinson Elizabeth J, Melton L Joseph
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Mar 14;165(5):530-6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.5.530.
Osteoporosis clinical prediction rules attempt to identify the postmenopausal women in whom, on the basis of individual risk factors, bone densitometry will detect low bone mass. We assessed and compared the diagnostic properties of the following 3 osteoporosis clinical prediction rules: the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, and National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines.
Secondary data analysis of an existing population-based sample of postmenopausal women 45 years or older (N = 202) in Rochester, Minn.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were calculated using the World Health Organization diagnosis of osteoporosis as the reference standard. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 29%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0. The Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument had a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 40%, PPV of 29%, NPV of 77%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0.4. The National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 10%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.1, and LR- of 0. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument were much more specific in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years compared with those 65 years or older.
Our results suggest that these clinical prediction rules do not perform well as a general screening method to identify postmenopausal women who are more likely to have osteoporosis; however, the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation may be useful in identifying some women who need not undergo testing, especially younger postmenopausal women.
骨质疏松症临床预测规则旨在根据个体风险因素,识别出骨密度测量会检测出低骨量的绝经后女性。我们评估并比较了以下3种骨质疏松症临床预测规则的诊断特性:简易计算骨质疏松风险评估、骨质疏松风险评估工具和美国国家骨质疏松基金会实践指南。
对明尼苏达州罗切斯特市现有的45岁及以上绝经后女性人群样本(N = 202)进行二次数据分析。
以世界卫生组织对骨质疏松症的诊断为参考标准,计算敏感性、特异性、阳性(PPV)和阴性(NPV)预测值,以及阳性(LR+)和阴性(LR-)似然比。简易计算骨质疏松风险评估的敏感性为100%,特异性为29%,PPV为27%,NPV为100%,LR+为1.4,LR-为0。骨质疏松风险评估工具的敏感性为98%,特异性为40%,PPV为29%,NPV为77%,LR+为1.4,LR-为0.4。美国国家骨质疏松基金会实践指南的敏感性为100%,特异性为10%,PPV为27%,NPV为100%,LR+为1.1,LR-为0。与65岁及以上的绝经后女性相比,简易计算骨质疏松风险评估和骨质疏松风险评估工具在65岁以下的绝经后女性中特异性更高。
我们的结果表明,这些临床预测规则作为一种识别更可能患有骨质疏松症的绝经后女性的常规筛查方法,效果不佳;然而,骨质疏松风险评估工具和简易计算骨质疏松风险评估可能有助于识别一些无需进行检测的女性,尤其是年轻的绝经后女性。