Comparison of screening strategies for prevalent vertebral fractures in South Korea: Vertebral fracture assessment vs. Spine radiography

5Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA) is a useful tool to detect the vertebral fracture (VF) with low cost and radiation exposure. We aimed to compare screening strategies including VFA and spine radiography (X-ray) for detecting VF in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost and radiation exposure. Methods: Three screening strategies: 1) X-ray following VFA, 2) VFA only, and 3) X-ray only were compared using a Markov model based on administrative data from South Korea in a population aged ≥50 years. We compared the incidence of new VFs, cost-effectiveness of reducing new VFs and radiation exposure in each strategy. Results: The incidence of new VFs was reduced in all screening strategies compared to no screening: 29.4% for women and 12.5% for men in both X-ray following the VFA and VFA only strategies and 35% for women and 17.5% for men in the X-ray only strategy. The X-ray following VFA strategy had the lowest cost, followed by the X-ray only, and VFA only strategies. The radiation doses for X-ray only were 2,647-2,989 μSv and 3,253-3,398 μSv higher than in the X-ray following VFA and VFA only strategies. The new VF prevention effect was greater in women, and more prominent in older people (women ≥ 70, men ≥ 80) than people ≥ 50 years. Conclusions: The X-ray following VFA strategy is a cost-effective option for screening prevalent VF to prevent new VF in people aged ≥50 years due to its high effectiveness, lowest cost, and least radiation exposure.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Oh, S. H., Kim, D., Lee, Y. E., Kim, D. Y., Lee, Y. K., Lee, J. H., … Sung, Y. K. (2018). Comparison of screening strategies for prevalent vertebral fractures in South Korea: Vertebral fracture assessment vs. Spine radiography. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1958-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free