Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
An official website of the United States government
Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Williams ST, Lawrence PT, Miller KL, Crook JL, LaFleur J, Cannon GW, Nelson RE. A comparison of electronic and manual fracture risk assessment tools in screening elderly male US veterans at risk for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2017 Nov 1; 28(11):3107-3111.
Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects. This study compares four screening tools in their ability to predict osteoporosis. We found that there was no significant difference between the tools. These results provide support for the use of automated screening tools which work in conjunction with the electronic medical record and help improve screening rates for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of four fracture risk assessment tools (FRATs) in identifying osteoporosis by bone mineral density (BMD) T-score: Veterans Affairs Fracture Absolute Risk Assessment Tool (VA-FARA), World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), electronic FRAX (e-FRAX), and Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool (OST). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all patients enrolled in the VA Salt Lake City bone health team (BHT) who had completed a DXA scan between February 1, 2012, and February 1, 2013. DXA scan results were obtained by chart abstraction. For calculation of FRAX, osteoporosis risk factors were obtained from a screening questionnaire completed prior to DXA. For VA-FARA and e-FRAX, risk factors were derived from the electronic medical record (EMR). Clinical risk scores were calculated and compared against the gold standard of DXA-based osteoporosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted, and areas under the curve (AUC) were compared. RESULTS: A cohort of 463 patients met eligibility criteria (mean age 80.4 years). One hundred twelve patients (24%) had osteoporosis as defined by DXA T-score = -2.5. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. ROC statistics were compared and did not reach statistical significance difference between FRATs in identifying DXA-based osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that all FRATs tested perform similarly in identifying osteoporosis among elderly, primarily Caucasian, male veterans. If these electronic screening methods perform similarly for fracture outcomes, they could replace manual FRAX and thus improve efficiency in identifying individuals who should be sent for DXA scan.
