4.3 Article

Assessing osteoporosis risk factors in Spanish menopausal women

Journal

GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 807-813

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2010.540599

Keywords

Menopausal women; osteoporosis; prevalence risk factors; main factors; differences between peri and postmenopausal women

Funding

  1. Almirall Pharmaceuticals
  2. Sanofi-Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. (1) To assess the prevalence of osteoporosis risk factors in Spanish menopausal women; (2) to detect medical and lifestyle risk factor differences between perimenopausal and postmenopausal women; (3) and to identify the main factors responsible for osteoporosis. Methods. Cross-sectional descriptive study encompassing women aged 45-65 across Spain. The study population sample was collected through random sampling and a total of 10,514 women were included. Socio-demographic, medical history, and lifestyle data were assessed. Results. The prevalence of osteoporosis risk factors was 67.6%. The most common risk factors were physical inactivity (53.6%), use of medication related to osteoporosis risk (45.9%), and low calcium intake (30.1%). There were statistically significant differences between peri- and postmenopausal women in terms of smoking status, alcohol intake, personal history, poor dairy product intake, and medication use that could increase risk. Logistic regression analysis showed that osteoporosis was significantly associated with age, family history, age at onset of menopause, Kupperman Index, prolonged immobilization, weight loss, and other diseases that increase the probability of developing osteoporosis. Conclusions. A high prevalence of women taking osteoporosis risk-related medication was observed in our study. There was correlation between the menopausal symptoms' degree of severity and the risk of suffering from osteoporosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available