↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Agreement between calcaneal quantitative ultrasound and osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians in identifying individuals at risk of osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
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 Burhanuddin 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 24%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Lecturer 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%

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
#6,766,519
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#405
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,478
of 272,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 272,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.