Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A nomogram for predicting osteoporosis risk based on age, weight and quantitative ultrasound measurement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Quantitative ultrasound measurement (QUS) or clinical risk index alone are not reliable tools for the identification of women with osteoporosis. This study examined the prognostic value of combined QUS and clinical risk index for predicting osteoporosis risk in Thai women.

Methods

The study was designed as a cross-sectional investigation with 300 women of Thai background, aged between 38 and 85 years (mean age: 58). Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by DXA (Hologic QDR-4500; Bedford, MA, USA). A femoral neck BMD T-scores ≤ −2.5 was defined as “osteoporosis”; otherwise, “non-osteoporosis”. QUS was measured by Achilles+ (GE Lunar, Madison, WI, USA) and converted to T-score. Three models for predicting osteoporosis were considered: model I included age, weight and QUS, model II included age and weight, and model III included only QUS. The prognostic performance among the models was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

The prevalence of osteoporosis was 12.7% (n = 38/300) by femoral neck BMD. Age, weight and QUS were each significantly associated with osteoporosis risk. The AUC±SE value for model I was 0.86 ± 0.03, which was significantly higher (p = 0.02) than that for model II (AUC = 0.80 ± 0.04) or model III (AUC = 0.79 ± 0.04). Based on the estimated parameters of model I, a nomogram was constructed for predicting osteoporosis.

Conclusion

These data suggest that the combination of QUS and age and weight could significantly improve the prognosis of osteoporosis in Asian women, and that the nomogram can assist primary care physicians in the identification of high-risk women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Raisz LG (2005) Pathogenesis of osteoporosis: concepts, conflicts, and prospects. J Clin Invest 115:3318–3325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen ND, Pongchaiyakul C, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2005). Identification of high-risk individuals for hip fracture: a 14-year prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 20:1921–1928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, De Laet C, Delmas P, Eisman JA, et al (2005) Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 20:1185–1194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Osteoporosis Foundation (2003) Physician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis 2003. Available online at http://www.nof.org/. Accessed June 25, 2006

  6. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 285:785–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hodgson SF, Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, Clarke BL, Gray TK, Harris DW, et al (2003) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 9:544–564

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM (2002) Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review. JAMA 288:1889–1897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanis JA, Johnell O (2005) Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 16:229–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Richy F, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Mawet A, Reginster JY (2004) Primary prevention of osteoporosis: mass screening scenario or prescreening with questionnaires? An economic perspective. J Bone Miner Res 19:1955–1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H (1996) Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 312:1254–1259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129

  13. Nelson HD, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Allan JD (2002) Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:529–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Genant HK, Cooper C, Poor G, Reid I, Ehrlich G, Kanis J, et al (1999) Interim report and recommendations of the World Health Organization Task-Force for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 10:259–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Koh LK, Sedrine WB, Torralba TP, Kung A, Fujiwara S, Chan SP, et al (2001) A simple tool to identify asian women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 12:699–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen ND, Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen TV (2004) Development and validation of a new clinical risk index for prediction of osteoporosis in Thai women. J Med Assoc Thai 87:910–916

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen ND, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2005) Clinical risk indices, prediction of osteoporosis, and prevention of fractures: diagnostic consequences and costs. Osteoporos Int 16:1444–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA (2004) Bone mineral density-independent association of quantitative ultrasound measurements and fracture risk in women. Osteoporos Int 15:942–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marin F, Gonzalez-Macias J, Diez-Perez A, Palma S, Delgado-Rodriguez M (2006) Relationship between bone quantitative ultrasound and fractures: a meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 21:1126–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lippuner K, Fuchs G, Ruetsche AG, Perrelet R, Casez JP, Neto I (2000) How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost- analysis. J Clin Densitom 3:241–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cetin A, Erturk H, Celiker R, Sivri A, Hascelik Z (2001) The role of quantitative ultrasound in predicting osteoporosis defined by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Rheumatol Int 20:55–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2000) Does quantitative ultrasound imaging enhance precision and discrimination? Osteoporos Int 11:425–433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Panichkul S, Sripramote M, Sriussawaamorn N (2004) Diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasound calcaneus measurement in case finding for osteoporosis in Thai postmenopausal women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 30:418–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nayak S, Olkin I, Liu H, Grabe M, Gould MK, Allen IE, et al (2006) Meta-analysis: accuracy of quantitative ultrasound for identifying patients with osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med 144:832–841

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Limpaphayom KK, Taechakraichana N, Jaisamrarn U, Bunyavejchevin S, Chaikittisilpa S, Poshyachinda M, et al (2000) Bone mineral density of lumbar spine and proximal femur in normal Thai women. J Med Assoc Thai 83:725–731

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Radiology 143:29–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrell FE (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. He YQ, Fan B, Hans D, Li J, Wu CY, Njeh CF, et al (2000) Assessment of a new quantitative ultrasound calcaneus measurement: precision and discrimination of hip fractures in elderly women compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 11:354–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenspan SL, Cheng S, Miller PD, Orwoll ES (2001) Clinical performance of a highly portable, scanning calcaneal ultrasonometer. Osteoporos Int 12:391–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chneider J, Bundschuh B, Spath C, Landkammer C, Muller H, Sommer U, et al (2004) Discrimination of patients with and without vertebral fractures as measured by ultrasound and DXA osteodensitometry. Calcif Tissue Int 74:246–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hollevoet N, Verdonk R, Goemaere S, Van Maele G (2004) Tibial ultrasound velocity in women with wrist fracture. J Clin Densitom 7:302–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nicholson PH, Bouxsein ML (2002) Effect of temperature on ultrasonic properties of the calcaneus in situ. Osteoporos Int 13:888–892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pocock NA, Babichev A, Culton N, Graney K, Rooney J, Bell D, et al (2000) Temperature dependency of quantitative ultrasound. Osteoporos Int 11:316–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Evans WD, Jones EA, Owen GM (1995) Factors affecting the in vivo precision of broad-band ultrasonic attenuation. Phys Med Biol 40:137–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ikeda Y, Iki M (2004) Precision control and seasonal variations in quantitative ultrasound measurement of the calcaneus. J Bone Miner Metab 22:588–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wong SL, Kattan MW, McMasters KM, Coit DG (2005) A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Ann Surg Oncol 12:282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kattan MW (2003) Nomograms are superior to staging and risk grouping systems for identifying high-risk patients: preoperative application in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 13:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nguyen TV, Center JR, Pocock NA, Eisman JA (2004) Limited utility of clinical risk indices in the identification of postmenopausal women with incident fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:49–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank staff of the Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Radiology, Phramongkutklao Hospital for their technical support. We thank Dr. Nguyen D. Nguyen for his help in the construction of ROC curves. Prof. Tuan V. Nguyen is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand

    C. Pongchaiyakul

  2. Department of Military Community Medicine, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

    S. Panichkul

  3. Department of Orthopedics, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

    T. Songpatanasilp

  4. Bone and Mineral Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    T. V. Nguyen

Authors
  1. C. Pongchaiyakul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Panichkul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Songpatanasilp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. V. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Pongchaiyakul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pongchaiyakul, C., Panichkul, S., Songpatanasilp, T. et al. A nomogram for predicting osteoporosis risk based on age, weight and quantitative ultrasound measurement. Osteoporos Int 18, 525–531 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0279-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0279-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation