Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Nelson, Heidi D., Helfand, Mark, Woolf, Steven H., Allan, Janet D.·2002·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although osteoporotic fractures present an enormous health burden, it is not clear whether screening to identify high-risk persons is appropriate. PURPOSE: To examine evidence on the benefits and harms of screening postmenopausal women for osteoporosis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to May 2001), HealthSTAR (1975 to May 2001), and Cochrane databases; reference lists; and experts. STUDY SELECTION: English-language abstracts that included original data about postmenopausal women and osteoporosis and addressed the effectiveness of risk factor assessment, bone density tests, or treatment were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Selected information about patient population, interventions, clinical end points, and study design were extracted, and a set of criteria was applied to evaluate study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: No trials of the effectiveness of screening have been published. Instruments developed to assess clinical risk factors for low bone density or fractures have moderate to high sensitivity and low specificity. Among different bone density tests measured at various sites, bone density measured at the femoral neck by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is the best predictor of hip fracture. Women with low bone density have approximately a 40% to 50% reduction in fracture risk when treated with bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening would be based on evidence that the risk for osteoporosis and fractures increases with age, that the short-term risk for fracture can be estimated by bone density tests and risk factors, and that fracture risk can be reduced with treatment. The role of risk factor assessment and different bone density techniques, frequency of screening, and identification of subgroups for which screening is most effective remain unclear.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-137-6-200209170-00015

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Nelson, H. D., Helfand, M., Woolf, S. H., & Allan, J. D.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2002-09-17
Volume
137
Issue
6
Pages
529-541
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2116705247
Cited by
295
References
5
FWCI
20.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-137-6-200209170-00015
The paper
Nelson, H. D., Helfand, M., Woolf, S. H., & Allan, J. D. (2002). Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-6-200209170-00015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.