Evidence Hub

Agreement analysis and inter-method agreement of quantitative ultrasound readings, and comparison with clinical risk factors: A bimodal approach to osteoporosis screening in the community of Terengganu

Abdullah NF, Ibrahim MS, Zulkafli WMAW, Bakar MZHA, Rahman LMA, Sharifudin MAB, Yusuf HM, Kamudin NAF

Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, 2026

227 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is an increasingly prevalent condition in Malaysia, raising concern over fracture risk and its impact on healthcare. The limited availability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) necessitates the development of practical alternatives for community-based screening. This study evaluated the inter-method agreement between quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and FRAX using a bimodal approach in community-based osteoporosis screening in Terengganu, Malaysia, and assessed the intra-rater reliability of QUS readings.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between 2023 and October 2025 involving 450 participants recruited from urban, rural, and workplace settings. The data collected included age, calcium and vitamin D intake, use of osteoporosis medication, history of bone scans, physical activity, smoking status, and community bone health screening using the bimodal approach, which comprises calcaneal QUS and FRAX. Inter-rater agreement reliability between QUS and FRAX was assessed using Gwet's AC2, while intra-rater reliability of the QUS measurement was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Overall, the calcium and vitamin D intake were relatively low, with only 43.5% of rural participants taking these supplements, and only 18.3% engaging in regular exercise. The QUS identified 52.2% of participants as prioritised (T-score less -1.5), while FRAX only 9.1% (>10% major osteoporotic fracture or 3% hip fracture).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 227 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