Evidence Hub

Predictors of bone mineral density testing in patients at high risk of osteoporosis: secondary analyses from the OSTEOPHARM randomized trial

Yuksel N, Tsuyuki RT, Majumdar SR

Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, 2012

262 participants

Abstract

In a randomized trial, we demonstrated that a community pharmacist osteoporosis screening intervention doubled the rates of bone mineral density (BMD) testing in high-risk patients. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the potentially modifiable factors associated with BMD testing. From 2005 to 2007, 15 pharmacies randomized 262 patients to intervention (education, pamphlets, point-of-care quantitative heel ultrasound [QUS]) or usual care. The main outcome was BMD testing within 4mo. Multivariate regression was used to determine independent correlates of BMD testing. The median age of the cohort was 62yr, 65% were women, and 49% (n=129) were randomized to intervention. Compared with patients who were not tested, those with BMD were more likely to be women (p=0.007) and have excellent or very good health (p<0.001). Postrandomization correlates of BMD test were intervention (p=0.017), greater osteoporosis knowledge (p=0.004), and osteoporosis-specific physician visits (p<0.001). In adjusted analyses, only female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-7.4) and osteoporosis-specific visits (aOR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.4-7.8) were independently associated with BMD testing. In analyses restricted to intervention patients, abnormal QUS (aOR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.4-9.1) was the only independent predictor of BMD test. Future interventions should incorporate the finding that osteoporosis-specific visits and abnormal QUS results were strongly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 262 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free