↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for osteoporosis and factors related to the use of DXA in Norway

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Osteoporosis, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors for osteoporosis and factors related to the use of DXA in Norway
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11657-015-0220-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. P. Høiberg, K. H. Rubin, J. Gram, A. P. Hermann, K. Brixen, G. Haugeberg

Abstract

To evaluate the case-finding strategy for osteoporosis in Norway, a questionnaire concerning risk factors for osteoporosis and history of osteodensitometry was mailed to a population-based cohort of 6000 men and 6000 women. Suboptimal examination rates among high risk and reallocation of scanning capacity to seemingly low-risk individuals was found. In Norway, a case-finding strategy for osteoporosis has been used. No data exist regarding the efficacy of this approach. The aim was to examine the prevalence of risk factors for osteoporosis and factors related to the use of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in Norway. Questionnaires regarding previous history of DXA, risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture were sent to an age-stratified, nationwide cross-sectional sample of 6000 men and 6000 women aged 40-90 years, drawn from the Norwegian Civil Registration System. Valid responses (6029) were included. Twenty-two point three percent of women and 3.8 % of men had been examined by DXA. Suboptimal examination rates among high risk (e.g., current/previous glucocorticoid treatment or previous low-energy fracture) and reallocation of scanning capacity to seemingly low-risk individuals was found. Of all DXA, 19.5 % were reported by women without any risk factor for osteoporosis, similarly by 16.2 % of men. Distance to DXA facilities and current smoking were inversely related to probability of reporting a DXA. Suboptimal examination rates among high risk and reallocation of scanning capacity to seemingly low-risk individuals were found. Distance to DXA, current smoking, and male sex constituted possible barriers to the case-finding strategy employed. Cheap and more available diagnostic tools for osteoporosis are needed, and risk stratification tools should be employed more extensively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Unspecified 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,336,434
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Osteoporosis
#354
of 637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,168
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Osteoporosis
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.