Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 10, Issue 3 , Pages 289-297, July 2007

Validation of a Novel Risk Estimation Tool for Predicting Low Bone Density in Caucasian and African American Men Veterans

  • Mark B. Zimering

      Affiliations

    • Medicine, Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, Lyons, NJ
    • Division of Endocrinology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Mark B. Zimering, MD, PhD, Medical Service (111), Department of Veterans Affairs, 151 Knollcroft Rd, Lyons, NJ 07939.
  • ,
  • John J. Shin

      Affiliations

    • Medicine, Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, Lyons, NJ
  • ,
  • Jyoti Shah

      Affiliations

    • Radiology, Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, Lyons, NJ
  • ,
  • Eric Wininger

      Affiliations

    • Division of Endocrinology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Newark Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • ,
  • Charles Engelhart

      Affiliations

    • Medicine, Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, Lyons, NJ

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 5 March 2007; accepted 7 March 2007. published online 26 April 2007.

Abstract 

Osteoporosis in men is a frequently missed diagnosis. We developed an additive risk index, Mscore (male, “simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation”), based on bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck (FN) in 639 ambulatory older male veterans. Mscore was derived from the nearest whole number ratio among regression coefficients for 5 variables independently associated with osteoporosis. Mscore=[2×(patient age in decades)(weight in lb/10)+4 if gastrectomy, +4 if emphysema, +3 if two or more prior fractures+14]. Age and weight variable scores are truncated to integers (i.e., 7 if 75yr, 18 if 185lb). Increased risk is reflected in higher Mscore values. We validated Mscore in 197 Caucasian male patients (mean age, 69yr): values of 9 or higher had 88% sensitivity, 57% specificity, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 for predicting osteoporosis at the FN (population prevalence, 11%). Mscore values ranged from −9 to 20 allowing us to define low (<9), moderate (9–13), or high (>13) risk categories. Two percent of low-risk men had osteoporosis, 36% or 55% of high-risk men had osteoporosis or osteopenia, respectively. In younger African American (n=134) male veterans (mean age, 61yr), age and weight were the only variables independently predictive of FN BMD. A reduced Mscoreage-weight (age and weight variable scores+14) at a cutoff threshold of 9 predicted osteoporosis in African American men (population prevalence, 3%) with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 73%, and an AUC of 0.99. Finally, we compared Mscore with another validated osteoporosis self-assessment tool (OST). OST at a cutoff threshold of 4 or Mscoreage-weight at a cutoff threshold of 9 performed similarly in both of our populations of Caucasian and African American men. In conclusion, a validated Mscore index with 5 variables was only slightly more robust for predicting osteoporosis in older Caucasian men than 2 (independently derived) risk indices based on age and weight. Mscoreage-weight or OST is easy to use and can be applied in populations of younger African American men.

Key Words: African American, men, osteoporosis, risk estimation, veterans

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1094-6950(07)00037-6

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2007.03.001

Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 10, Issue 3 , Pages 289-297, July 2007