Screening for osteoporosis

L. Joseph Melton, David M. Eddy, C. Conrad Johnston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

171 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To review evidence that screening for osteoporosis by measuring bone mass in postmenopausal women would reduce fracture incidence. Data Identification: An English-language literature search using MEDLINE (1966 to 1989), bibliographic reviews of book chapters and review articles, technology assessments of bone mass measurement, and other publications. Study Selection: We summarize prospective studies of fracture risk prediction done with widely used bone mass measurement techniques, and we document noncontroversial or peripheral points with recent papers and reviews. Data Extraction: Without osteoporosis screening trials, no quantitative analysis is possible. Instead, we assess the ability of screening tests to measure bone mass and define fracture risk categories, the ability of risk categories to determine treatment, and the ability of treatment to reduce fracture incidence. Results of Data Synthesis: Bone mass measurement meets many of the criteria for a screening test, and indirect evidence suggests that a screening program might reduce osteoporosis-related fracture incidence. No trial has shown this directly; however, and questions remain about overall benefits and costs of mass screening. Conclusions: Although there are clinical indications for bone mass measurement, unselective screening for osteoporosis cannot be recommended until a specific program is formulated and justified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)516-528
Number of pages13
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume112
Issue number7
StatePublished - Apr 1 1990

Fingerprint

Osteoporosis
Bone and Bones
Aptitude
Incidence
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Mass Screening
MEDLINE
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Language
Prospective Studies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Melton, L. J., Eddy, D. M., & Johnston, C. C. (1990). Screening for osteoporosis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 112(7), 516-528.

Screening for osteoporosis. / Melton, L. Joseph; Eddy, David M.; Johnston, C. Conrad.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 112, No. 7, 01.04.1990, p. 516-528.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Melton, LJ, Eddy, DM & Johnston, CC 1990, 'Screening for osteoporosis', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 112, no. 7, pp. 516-528.
Melton LJ, Eddy DM, Johnston CC. Screening for osteoporosis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1990 Apr 1;112(7):516-528.
Melton, L. Joseph ; Eddy, David M. ; Johnston, C. Conrad. / Screening for osteoporosis. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 1990 ; Vol. 112, No. 7. pp. 516-528.
@article{6b88a9dd148c4da88422d33deeca311e,
title = "Screening for osteoporosis",
abstract = "Purpose: To review evidence that screening for osteoporosis by measuring bone mass in postmenopausal women would reduce fracture incidence. Data Identification: An English-language literature search using MEDLINE (1966 to 1989), bibliographic reviews of book chapters and review articles, technology assessments of bone mass measurement, and other publications. Study Selection: We summarize prospective studies of fracture risk prediction done with widely used bone mass measurement techniques, and we document noncontroversial or peripheral points with recent papers and reviews. Data Extraction: Without osteoporosis screening trials, no quantitative analysis is possible. Instead, we assess the ability of screening tests to measure bone mass and define fracture risk categories, the ability of risk categories to determine treatment, and the ability of treatment to reduce fracture incidence. Results of Data Synthesis: Bone mass measurement meets many of the criteria for a screening test, and indirect evidence suggests that a screening program might reduce osteoporosis-related fracture incidence. No trial has shown this directly; however, and questions remain about overall benefits and costs of mass screening. Conclusions: Although there are clinical indications for bone mass measurement, unselective screening for osteoporosis cannot be recommended until a specific program is formulated and justified.",
author = "Melton, {L. Joseph} and Eddy, {David M.} and Johnston, {C. Conrad}",
year = "1990",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "112",
pages = "516--528",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for osteoporosis

AU - Melton, L. Joseph

AU - Eddy, David M.

AU - Johnston, C. Conrad

PY - 1990/4/1

Y1 - 1990/4/1

N2 - Purpose: To review evidence that screening for osteoporosis by measuring bone mass in postmenopausal women would reduce fracture incidence. Data Identification: An English-language literature search using MEDLINE (1966 to 1989), bibliographic reviews of book chapters and review articles, technology assessments of bone mass measurement, and other publications. Study Selection: We summarize prospective studies of fracture risk prediction done with widely used bone mass measurement techniques, and we document noncontroversial or peripheral points with recent papers and reviews. Data Extraction: Without osteoporosis screening trials, no quantitative analysis is possible. Instead, we assess the ability of screening tests to measure bone mass and define fracture risk categories, the ability of risk categories to determine treatment, and the ability of treatment to reduce fracture incidence. Results of Data Synthesis: Bone mass measurement meets many of the criteria for a screening test, and indirect evidence suggests that a screening program might reduce osteoporosis-related fracture incidence. No trial has shown this directly; however, and questions remain about overall benefits and costs of mass screening. Conclusions: Although there are clinical indications for bone mass measurement, unselective screening for osteoporosis cannot be recommended until a specific program is formulated and justified.

AB - Purpose: To review evidence that screening for osteoporosis by measuring bone mass in postmenopausal women would reduce fracture incidence. Data Identification: An English-language literature search using MEDLINE (1966 to 1989), bibliographic reviews of book chapters and review articles, technology assessments of bone mass measurement, and other publications. Study Selection: We summarize prospective studies of fracture risk prediction done with widely used bone mass measurement techniques, and we document noncontroversial or peripheral points with recent papers and reviews. Data Extraction: Without osteoporosis screening trials, no quantitative analysis is possible. Instead, we assess the ability of screening tests to measure bone mass and define fracture risk categories, the ability of risk categories to determine treatment, and the ability of treatment to reduce fracture incidence. Results of Data Synthesis: Bone mass measurement meets many of the criteria for a screening test, and indirect evidence suggests that a screening program might reduce osteoporosis-related fracture incidence. No trial has shown this directly; however, and questions remain about overall benefits and costs of mass screening. Conclusions: Although there are clinical indications for bone mass measurement, unselective screening for osteoporosis cannot be recommended until a specific program is formulated and justified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025319638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025319638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 112

SP - 516

EP - 528

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 7

ER -