↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of three tools for predicting primary osteoporosis in an elderly male population in Beijing: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of three tools for predicting primary osteoporosis in an elderly male population in Beijing: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/cia.s145741
Pubmed ID
Authors

XiaoDong Zhang, JiSheng Lin, Yong Yang, Hao Wu, Yongjin Li, Xiuquan Yang, Qi Fei

Abstract

In this cross-sectional study, three clinical tools, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD), and body mass index (BMI), for predicting primary osteoporosis (OP) were compared and ideal thresholds for omission of screening BMD were proposed in a community-dwelling elderly Han Beijing male population. A total of 1,349 community-dwelling elderly Han Beijing males aged ≥50 years were enrolled in this study. All subjects completed a questionnaire and measured BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score of -2.5 SD or lower than that of the average young adult in different diagnostic criteria (lumbar spine [L1-L4], femoral neck, total hip, worst hip, and World Health Organization [WHO]). FRAX without BMD, OSTA, and BMI were assessed for predicting OP by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Sensitivity, specificity, and areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) were determined. Ideal thresholds for omission of screening BMD were proposed. The prevalence of OP ranged from 1.8% to 12.8% according to different diagnostic criteria. This study showed that the BMI has highest discriminating ability. The AUC of FRAX without BMD ranged from 0.536 to 0.630, which suggested limiting predictive value for identifying OP in elderly Beijing male. The AUCs of BMI (0.801-0.880) were slightly better than OSTA (0.722-0.874) in predicting OP at all sites. The AUC of BMI to identify OP in worst hip was 0.824, yielding a sensitivity of 84.8% and a specificity of 64.4%. 40% of participants on BMD measurements saved only 0.1%-2.7% missed OP. Compared to OSTA and FRAX without BMD, the BMI got the best predictive value for OP. BMI may be a simple and effective tool for identifying OP in the elderly male population in Beijing to omit BMD screening reasonably.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 50%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Sports and Recreations 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%

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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#10,037,108
of 12,544,629 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,045
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,424
of 271,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#29
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,544,629 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 271,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.