Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Bone health risk assessment in a clinical setting: an evaluation of a new screening tool for active populations

View ORCID ProfileNicola Keay, Gavin Francis, View ORCID ProfileKaren Hind
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.07.20170142
Nicola Keay
1Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicola Keay
  • For correspondence: nickykeayfrancis{at}googlemail.com
Gavin Francis
2Science4Peformance, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen Hind
1Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Karen Hind
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction Risk factors for poor bone health are not restricted to older, sedentary populations for whom current screening is focused. Furthermore, access to dual X-ray absorptiometry scanning can be limited in clinical practice. The purpose of the current study was to develop a bone health-screening tool suitable for inclusion of both younger and active populations, combined with radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry technology (REMS).

Methodology 88 participants attending a physiotherapy clinic in the UK were recruited to the study: 71 women (mean age 41.5 SD 14.0 years); 17 men (mean age 40.2 SD 14.9 years). Participants completed an online bone health-screening questionnaire developed specifically for this study covering a range of lifestyle, physiological factors, combined with medical interview and received bone mineral density (BMD) measurement at the lumbar spine and femoral neck using REMS.

Results Scoring of the bone health-screening questionnaire produced a distribution of bone health scores, with lower scores suggesting a higher risk for poor bone health. In women, scores ranged from -10 to +12, mean score 2.2 (SD 4.8). In men, scores ranged from 0 to 12, mean score 6.9 (SD 3.2). A positive correlation was observed between the bone health score derived from the questionnaire and lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD Z-scores (p<0.01).

Conclusions This new and comprehensive bone health-screening questionnaire with interview was effective in identifying active individuals at risk of bone fragility, who might be missed by current screening methods. The use of REMS technology to measure bone health, was feasible in the clinical setting.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No external funding was received for this study. Thank you to Bonosso Ltd, UK distributor of Echolight S.p.A, for providing loan of the Echolight scanner.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Durham University 27/8/2019

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Supplemental files added

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 28, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bone health risk assessment in a clinical setting: an evaluation of a new screening tool for active populations
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Bone health risk assessment in a clinical setting: an evaluation of a new screening tool for active populations
Nicola Keay, Gavin Francis, Karen Hind
medRxiv 2020.08.07.20170142; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.07.20170142
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Bone health risk assessment in a clinical setting: an evaluation of a new screening tool for active populations
Nicola Keay, Gavin Francis, Karen Hind
medRxiv 2020.08.07.20170142; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.07.20170142

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Sports Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)