ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Performance of USPSTF-recommended osteoporosis risk assessment tools in identifying osteoporosis in older men: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the growing recognition of osteoporosis in men, screening tools validated for this population remain underutilized. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of three U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended risk assessment tools for identifying osteoporosis among older men. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 2,824 men aged ≥65 years who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at two teaching hospitals between 2015 and 2024. Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score ≤ -2.5 at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine. Three screening tools, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE)-were calculated for each participant. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, with the area under the curve (AUC) compared using the DeLong test. Optimal thresholds were identified by maximizing the Youden index. Results: Among the 2,824 men included in the study, 598 (21.2%) were diagnosed with osteoporosis. All three USPSTF-recommended tools demonstrated acceptable discrimination. The AUCs were 0.7339 (95% CI, 0.7121-0.7556) for OST, 0.7168 (95% CI, 0.6939-0.7396) for OSIRIS, and 0.7153 (95% CI, 0.6931-0.7375) for SCORE. Pairwise comparisons showed that OST performed significantly better than OSIRIS (ΔAUC = 0.0171, p = 0.0124) and SCORE (ΔAUC = 0.0186, p = 0.0002), whereas OSIRIS and SCORE demonstrated comparable performance (ΔAUC = 0.0015, p = 0.8523). The optimal thresholds were -0.7 for OST, -1.5 for OSIRIS, and 11.5 for SCORE, producing sensitivities of 0.7743, 0.6739, and 0.6890 and specificities of 0.5714, 0.6698, and 0.6352. Conclusions: Among USPSTF-endorsed screening tools, OST demonstrated the best overall diagnostic performance for identifying osteoporosis in older men. Its simplicity and favorable sensitivity-specificity balance support its utility as a practical first-line screening approach in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.