| Title |
Agreement between calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in identifying individuals at risk of osteoporosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s145519 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kok-Yong Chin, Nie Yen Low, Alia Annessa Ain Kamaruddin, Wan Ilma Dewiputri, Ima-Nirwana Soelaiman |
| Abstract |
Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is a useful tool in osteoporosis screening. However, QUS device may not be available at all primary health care settings. Osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA) is a simple algorithm for osteoporosis screening that does not require any sophisticated instruments. This study explored the possibility of replacing QUS with OSTA by determining their agreement in identifying individuals at risk of osteoporosis. A cross-sectional study was conducted to recruit Malaysian men and women aged ≥50 years. Their bone health status was measured using a calcaneal QUS device and OSTA. The association between OSTA and QUS was determined using Spearman's correlation and their agreement was assessed using Cohen Kappa and receiver-operating curve. All QUS indices correlated significantly with OSTA (p<0.05). The agreement between QUS and OSTA was minimal but statistically significant (p<0.05). The performance of OSTA in identifying subjects at risk of osteoporosis according to QUS was poor-to-fair in women (p<0.05), but not statistically significant for men (p>0.05). Changing the cut-off values improved the performance of OSTA in women but not in men. The agreement between QUS and OSTA is minimal in categorizing individuals at risk of osteoporosis. Therefore, they cannot be used interchangeably in osteoporosis screening. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 14% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#667
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,162
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.