Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Prescreening tools to determine who needs DXA.

Elliott N Schwartz1, Dee M Steinberg

  • 1The Northern California Institute for Bone Health, Inc., 3100 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 3000, Oakland, CA 94609, USA. Administrator@betterbones.org

Current Osteoporosis Reports
|November 23, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry Monitoring with Trabecular Bone Score: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry·2019
Same author

Non-BMD DXA measurements of the hip.

Bone·2017
Same author

Stress fractures about the tibia, foot, and ankle.

The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons·2012
Same author

Peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions.

Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry·2008
Same author

Detection of vertebral fractures.

Current osteoporosis reports·2005
Same author

Combination teriparatide and raloxifene therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from a 6-month double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research·2005
Same journal

Beyond Fracture Probability: Communicating the Full Consequences of Fracture and Contextualization.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
Same journal

Time-Lapse HR-pQCT: an in Vivo Imaging-Based Assessment of Bone Remodeling Dynamics.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
Same journal

Cone Beam Computed Tomography of Bonejaws in Patients With Primary Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
Same journal

Testosterone and Bone Health in Men.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
Same journal

Stimulant Medications and Bone Health.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
Same journal

The Innate and Adaptive Immune Functions of Osteoblast-Lineage Cells.

Current osteoporosis reports·2026
See all related articles

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) help identify low bone mass in women. While most CDRs exceed 80% sensitivity, a lack of consensus on risk factors and testing regions hinders widespread clinical adoption.

Area of Science:

  • Osteoporosis research
  • Clinical decision support systems
  • Women's health

Background:

  • Clinical decision rules (CDRs) aim to improve physician practice.
  • Several CDRs for identifying low bone mass in women have emerged since the mid-1990s.
  • Examples include SCORE, OST (OSTA), OSIRIS, SOFSURF, NOF, ABONE, pBW, ORAI, and weight-only-EPIDOS (WO-E).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and compare existing CDRs for low bone mass identification.
  • To analyze the development and validation cohorts of these CDRs.
  • To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the available CDRs.

Main Methods:

  • Review of literature on CDRs for low bone mass.
  • Analysis of development and validation data for each CDR.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of sensitivity and specificity metrics.

    • Main Results:

    • All reviewed CDRs demonstrate sensitivities exceeding 80%.
    • Specificities for these CDRs are approximately 50%.
    • OST is favored for simplicity, SCORE for flexibility, but consensus is lacking on risk factors and DXA regions.

    Conclusions:

    • A lack of consensus on risk factors and testing regions presents barriers to clinical application of CDRs.
    • Widespread adoption requires agreement on a single, globally applicable CDR.
    • Standardization is crucial for effectively identifying low bone mass and improving patient care.