medigraphic.com

2007, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2007; 45 (4)

Reliability of the Modified Albrand Questionnaire to Diagnose Osteoporosis

Mendoza-Romo MA, Ramírez-Arriola MC

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 329-334
PDF size: 114.20 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: a considerable amount of Mexican women will be in menopausal status, though it won’t be possible to carry out densitometry to all of them. Developing a risk-factor based instrument to screen those who would need it is advisable.
Objective: to ascertain the sensitivity and specificity of the Albrand questionnaire, that could be used to identify risk factors for osteoporosis.
Material and method: a cross-sectional study with a non-probabilistic sampling technique was used to include 906 menopausal women. All women answered a modified and previously validated version of Albrand questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83. Eight risk factors for osteoporosis were analyzed; each risk factor had a different weight and the total score per patient was calculated. All underwent lower arm densitometry.
Results: peripheral densitometry revealed that 166 patients had osteoporosis and 740 had not. The global prevalence of osteoporosis was 18.3 %; the cut-off value was set in › 4 points. The Albrand questionnaire had 55% sensitivity and 79 % specificity; the positive predictive value was 39 % and the negative predictive value was 90 %.
Conclusion: Albrand questionnaire has acceptable sensitivity and specificity and it could be useful to screen menopausal women that would need densitometry tests. Applying the instrument would reduce costs of osteoporosis detection.


REFERENCES

  1. Guzmán-Ibarra M, Ablanedo-Aguirre J, Armijo-Delgadillo R, García-Ruiz E. Prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis assessed by densitometry in postmenopausal women. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2003;71:225-232.

  2. Mendoza-Romo MA, Ramírez-Arriola MC, Escalante-Pulido JM, Martínez-Zuñiga R. Osteo-porosis en mexicanas mayores de 40 años. Rev Med IMSS 2003;41(3):193-202.

  3. Cummings SR, Bates D, Black DM. Clinical use of bone densitometry: Scientific review. JAMA 2002;16;288(15):1889-1897.

  4. Montero ME, Calabuig ML, Muñoz JL, Valero J, Todoli JR, Calabuig J, et al. Densitometría axial y periférica en el diagnóstico de la osteoporosis. Rev Esp Enferm Metab Oseas 2002;11(05):140-143.

  5. Murillo UA, Martínez TN, Takane V, Santos GJ, Carranza LS. Determinación de la sensibilidad y especificidad de un cuestionario de factores de riesgo de osteoporosis. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000;68 (10):408-415.

  6. Albrand G. Clinical test of identify patients with osteoporosis. Osteop Int 1998;18(3):91.

  7. Rodríguez-Leal GA, Pérez-Hernández ML, Morán-Villota C, Ramos-Ostos MH. Validación de escalas para la detección de osteoporosis en mujeres asinto-máticas que acuden a revisión médica a una unidad de diagnóstico clínico. Medica Sur 2002(9);1:30.

  8. Damilakis J, Papadokostakis G, Perisinakis K, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N. Can radial bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound measurements reduce the number of women who need axial density skeletal assessment? Osteoporos Int 2003;14(8):688-693.

  9. Ben Sedrine W, Broers P, Devogelaer JP, Depresseux G, Kaufman JM, Goemaere S, Reginster JY. Interest of a prescreening questionnaire to reduce the cost of bone densitometry Osteoporos Int 2002;13(5): 434-42.

  10. Fitzpatrick LA. Secondary causes of osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77(5):453-468.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com