Andrés Heriberto Guillen-Lozoya , Luis E. Segura , Jorge Armando Hermosillo-Villafranca , David Vega-Morales , Pedro Alberto García-Hernández , Brenda Roxana Vázquez-Fuentes , Alejandro Garza-Alpirez , Mario Alberto Garza-Elizondo
{"title":"自我转诊和医学转诊患者低骨密度的检测","authors":"Andrés Heriberto Guillen-Lozoya , Luis E. Segura , Jorge Armando Hermosillo-Villafranca , David Vega-Morales , Pedro Alberto García-Hernández , Brenda Roxana Vázquez-Fuentes , Alejandro Garza-Alpirez , Mario Alberto Garza-Elizondo","doi":"10.1016/j.rcreue.2022.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The Mexican health-care system is a mixture of governmental and private institutions. The osteoporosis screening algorithm has a multiple case start-point, the most common being medical referral; however, self-screening is available where patients can arrange a bone densitometry themselves.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of self-screening for osteoporosis and osteopenia among a Mexican population.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A retrospective observational study was performed as a secondary outcome from an institutional cohort of patients who attended an osteoporosis center. We divided the cohort into two groups: self-referred patients and medical-referred patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The overall prevalence of osteoporosis between the two groups was 1160 (self-referred <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->44; 29.5% vs medical-referred <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->227; 22.5%; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.057) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.44; .98–2.12) and the prevalence of osteopenia was (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->122; 81.9% vs <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->811; 80.2%; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.633) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.11; .71–1.73).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was no statistical difference between the self-referred and the medically referred patients in the overall diagnosis of osteoporosis and/or osteopenia. Nevertheless, the incidence of osteoporosis and osteopenia as an outcome for the self-referred patients was not lower than that of those with a medical referral.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101099,"journal":{"name":"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)","volume":"30 4","pages":"Pages 305-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detection of low bone mineral density in self-referred and medically referred patients\",\"authors\":\"Andrés Heriberto Guillen-Lozoya , Luis E. Segura , Jorge Armando Hermosillo-Villafranca , David Vega-Morales , Pedro Alberto García-Hernández , Brenda Roxana Vázquez-Fuentes , Alejandro Garza-Alpirez , Mario Alberto Garza-Elizondo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rcreue.2022.03.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The Mexican health-care system is a mixture of governmental and private institutions. The osteoporosis screening algorithm has a multiple case start-point, the most common being medical referral; however, self-screening is available where patients can arrange a bone densitometry themselves.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of self-screening for osteoporosis and osteopenia among a Mexican population.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A retrospective observational study was performed as a secondary outcome from an institutional cohort of patients who attended an osteoporosis center. We divided the cohort into two groups: self-referred patients and medical-referred patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The overall prevalence of osteoporosis between the two groups was 1160 (self-referred <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->44; 29.5% vs medical-referred <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->227; 22.5%; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.057) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.44; .98–2.12) and the prevalence of osteopenia was (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->122; 81.9% vs <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->811; 80.2%; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.633) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.11; .71–1.73).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was no statistical difference between the self-referred and the medically referred patients in the overall diagnosis of osteoporosis and/or osteopenia. Nevertheless, the incidence of osteoporosis and osteopenia as an outcome for the self-referred patients was not lower than that of those with a medical referral.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 305-309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S244444052300081X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S244444052300081X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Detection of low bone mineral density in self-referred and medically referred patients
Introduction
The Mexican health-care system is a mixture of governmental and private institutions. The osteoporosis screening algorithm has a multiple case start-point, the most common being medical referral; however, self-screening is available where patients can arrange a bone densitometry themselves.
Objective
The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of self-screening for osteoporosis and osteopenia among a Mexican population.
Materials and methods
A retrospective observational study was performed as a secondary outcome from an institutional cohort of patients who attended an osteoporosis center. We divided the cohort into two groups: self-referred patients and medical-referred patients.
Results
The overall prevalence of osteoporosis between the two groups was 1160 (self-referred n = 44; 29.5% vs medical-referred n = 227; 22.5%; p = .057) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.44; .98–2.12) and the prevalence of osteopenia was (n = 122; 81.9% vs n = 811; 80.2%; p = .633) (OR (Odds Ratio); 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 1.11; .71–1.73).
Conclusion
There was no statistical difference between the self-referred and the medically referred patients in the overall diagnosis of osteoporosis and/or osteopenia. Nevertheless, the incidence of osteoporosis and osteopenia as an outcome for the self-referred patients was not lower than that of those with a medical referral.