4.2 Article

Validation of the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) in a Primary Care Setting

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 436-444

Publisher

AMER BOARD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.04.120182

Keywords

Decision Making; Men's Health; Osteoporosis; Prevention; Primary Health Care; Screening

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality [1R03HS017732-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Primary care physicians are positioned to promote early recognition and treatment of men at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures; however, efficient screening strategies are needed. This study was designed to validate the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) for identifying men at increased risk of osteoporosis. Methods: This was a blinded analysis of the MORES, administered prospectively in a cross-sectional sample of men aged 60 years or older. Participants completed a research questionnaire at an outpatient visit and had a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to assess bone density. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under-the-curve (AUC) were estimated for the MORES. Effectiveness was assessed by the number needed-to-screen (NNS) to prevent one additional major osteoporotic fracture. Results: A total of 346 men completed the study. The mean age was 70.2 +/- 6.9 years; 76% were non-Hispanic white. Fifteen men (4.3%) had osteoporosis of the hip. The operating characteristics were sensitivity 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.96); specificity 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74), and AUC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.92). Screening with the MORES yielded a NNS to prevent one additional major osteoporotic fracture over 10 years with 259 (95% CI, 192-449) compared to 636 for universal screening with a DXA. Conclusion: This study validated the MORES as an effective and efficient approach to identifying men at increased risk of osteoporosis who may benefit from a diagnostic DXA scan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available