FRAX Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article

    Performance of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool Associated with Muscle Mass Measurements and Handgrip to Screen for the Risk of Osteoporosis in Young Postmenopausal Women

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2022;44(1):32-39

    Summary

    Original Article

    Performance of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool Associated with Muscle Mass Measurements and Handgrip to Screen for the Risk of Osteoporosis in Young Postmenopausal Women

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2022;44(1):32-39

    DOI 10.1055/s-0041-1741408

    Views9

    Abstract

    Objective

    To evaluate the improvement in screening accuracy of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) for the risk of developing osteoporosis among young postmenopausal women by associating with it clinical muscle mass measures.

    Methods

    A sample of postmenopausal women was submitted to calcaneal quantitative ultrasound (QUS), application of the FRAX questionnaire, and screening for the risk of developing sarcopenia at a health fair held in the city of São Bernardo do Campo in 2019. The sample also underwent anthropometric measurements, muscle mass, walking speed and handgrip tests. A major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk ≥ 8.5% on the FRAX, a classification of medium risk on the clinical guideline of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), and a QUS T-score ≤ -1.8 sd were considered risks of having low bone mass, and QUS T-score ≤ -2.5sd, risk of having fractures.

    Results

    In total, 198 women were evaluated, with a median age of 64±7.7 years, median body mass index (BMI) of 27.3±5.3 kg/m2 and median QUS T-score of -1.3±1.3 sd. The accuracy of the FRAX with a MOF risk ≥ 8.5% to identify women with T-scores ≤ -1.8 sd was poor, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.604 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.509-0.694) for women under 65 years of age, and of 0.642 (95%CI: 0.571-0.709) when age was not considered. Including data on muscle mass in the statistical analysis led to a significant improvement for the group of women under 65 years of age, with an AUC of 0,705 (95%CI: 0.612-0.786). The ability of the high-risk NOGG tool to identify T-scores ≤ -1.8 sd was limited.

    Conclusion

    Clinical muscle mass measurements increased the accuracy of the FRAX to screen for osteoporosis in women aged under 65 years.

    See more
    Performance of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool Associated with Muscle Mass Measurements and Handgrip to Screen for the Risk of Osteoporosis in Young Postmenopausal Women

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE