Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Psychometric properties of the osteoporosis assessment questionnaire (OPAQ) 2.0: results from the multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation (MORE) study

  • Wei Shen1,
  • Russel Burge1Email author,
  • April N Naegeli1,
  • Jeremy Shih2,
  • Jahangir Alam1,
  • Deborah T Gold3 and
  • Stuart Silverman4
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders201415:374

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-374

Received: 21 May 2014

Accepted: 3 November 2014

Published: 17 November 2014

Abstract

Background

We explored psychometric properties of the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 in terms of reliability, validity, and responsiveness with generic, clinical, demographic, and preference-based data collected from a population of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Methods

The Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial evaluating efficacy and safety of raloxifene. The Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0, a generic quality of life measure (Nottingham Health Profile), and a preference-based measure (Health Utilities Index) were administered at baseline and annually. Psychometric properties of the 14 Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 domains were evaluated by standard statistical techniques.

Results

This study included a subset of 1477 women from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation study population completing the questionnaires. Mean (standard deviation) age was 68.4 (6.8) years. Prevalent vertebral fractures were found in 70% (n =1038) of women. Internal consistency was >0.7 in 9 Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 domains. Correlations were moderate and significant for similar Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 domain scores, Nottingham Health Profile domains, and Health Utilities Index scores. All but 2 Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 domains distinguished between patients with or without prevalent vertebral fractures and detected worsening with increased number of vertebral fractures. Women with ≥1 incident vertebral fracture generally had a greater worsening in Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 scores (excluding social activity and support of family and friends) from baseline to study endpoint compared with women without incident vertebral fractures.

Conclusions

Most domains in the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire 2.0 demonstrated robust psychometric properties; however, several domains not showing these criteria may need to be reassessed and removed for a potentially shorter and validated version of the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire.

Keywords

Health-related quality of lifeOsteoporosisVertebral fracturePsychometric properties

Background

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease in which bone mineral density (BMD) is reduced and structural deterioration of the bone tissue occurs, which leads to bone weakness and an increased susceptibility to fractures [1, 2]. In postmenopausal women, osteoporosis is the major underlying cause of fractures, which often occur in the hip, spine, and wrist [14]. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a multidimensional concept that defines a person’s health status in specific dimensions including physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being [5]. Osteoporosis also can impact multiple dimensions of HRQoL, including: anxiety and depression, reduced self-image, limitations in the ability to work and enjoy leisure activities, acute or chronic pain, difficulties in performing the activities of daily life, loss of independence, and changes in relationships with family and friends [3, 6]. In women with established postmenopausal osteoporosis, vertebral fractures may result in back pain, physical functioning limitations, and psychosocial impairment [7, 8].

Assessment of HRQoL in women with osteoporosis remains an important objective, especially among those women with severe osteoporosis (especially those with fracture). Despite recent progress in the treatment of osteoporosis (e.g. more treatment options are available), there has been limited progress in the development of osteoporosis-specific quality of life instruments over the last decade. The HRQoL among patients with osteoporosis—as measured by disease-targeted instruments such as the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire (OPAQ)—decreases following incident clinical fracture [6]. The OPAQ is an 81-item, validated instrument that was developed with patients and healthcare professionals which shows adequate psychometric properties and appropriateness for use during clinical trials [911]. Some items from the OPAQ that did not discriminate between patients with and without prevalent vertebral fracture in the Sanofi tiludronate trial were subsequently eliminated to create a short-form, 67-item OPAQ instrument version 2.0 (OPAQ 2.0) [12]. The recall period was also changed from 4 to 2 weeks to improve accuracy of recall. The OPAQ 2.0 is a disease-targeted, patient-reported measure of HRQoL in patients with osteoporosis. The questionnaire was 1 of 2 disease-targeted instruments administered to measure HRQoL in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) study.

The MORE study was the first large interventional trial in osteoporosis to perform prospective HRQoL assessments over a 3-year period [6, 1315]. While the primary objective of the MORE study was to examine the long-term effects of raloxifene on the skeleton in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the secondary objective was to compare treatment-related changes in HRQoL. The MORE study design and results have been reported elsewhere; in summary, both prevalent and incident vertebral fractures were associated with decreases in HRQoL, and increasing numbers of prevalent vertebral fractures were associated with progressive decreases in HRQoL [6, 14]. According to the study results, the HRQoL effect of vertebral fracture depends on the number and location of fractures [6, 10, 14].

The validity and clinical relevance of HRQoL instruments have come under increased scrutiny since the 2005 European Medical Agency and 2009 United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines related to the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical medical product development [16, 17]. These guidelines clearly specify a need to develop and confirm the suitability of HRQoL instruments in the patient population for which the therapy will be indicated in order to support the validity of evaluation. The HRQoL data from the MORE trial remain a robust and rich source of HRQoL information in osteoporosis clinical trials. The MORE trial participants were generally in the early stage of osteoporosis, although MORE also included a sizable number of patients with severe osteoporosis who were administered questionnaires including the OPAQ 2.0. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the OPAQ in terms of reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness by using PRO, clinical (e.g. fracture), demographic (e.g. age), and preference-based data collected from women in the MORE study.

Methods

Study population

This was a post hoc retrospective analysis that used data from the MORE study. The MORE study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of raloxifene. Participants in the MORE study included 7705 postmenopausal women, aged ≤80 years at 180 centers in 25 countries. Women, who had osteoporosis, as defined by low BMD (T-score ≤ −2.5 standard deviations below the young adult peak mean BMD) or radiographically apparent vertebral by fractures, were enrolled into 2 study groups and then randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Study group 1 included those whose femoral neck or lumbar spine BMD T-score was below −2.5. Study group 2 included women who had low BMD and ≥1 moderate or severe vertebral fracture; low BMD and 2 mild vertebral fractures; or at least 2 moderate vertebral fractures, regardless of BMD [13]. The MORE study protocol was approved by the human studies review board at each center, and informed consent was obtained. The MORE clinical study was conducted according to the ethical principles stated in the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, the applicable guidelines for good clinical practices, or the applicable laws and regulations of the countries where the study was conducted, whichever provided the greater protection of the individual. For the current study on validity and reliability assessment, the analyses included all 1477 patients who completed the OPAQ 2.0 at baseline, and for responsiveness analyses, patients who completed baseline and ≥1 annual post-baseline measure (up to 36 months) were included (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Population of women included in the validity and reliability assessment and the responsiveness analysis. Abbreviation: N = number; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire.

Clinical and health-related quality of life measurements

Participants underwent spine radiography at baseline, 24 months, and 36 months. Women were seen every 6 months over the 3 years of the MORE study. All vertebral fractures were confirmed by review of spine radiographs, and patients were informed of the results. Incident vertebral fractures were assessed at scheduled yearly follow-up visits or at unscheduled visits, according to reported symptoms suggestive of a fracture, but fractures were always confirmed by radiographic evidence. Nonvertebral fractures were determined by direct questioning, every 6 months at each clinic visit. Spine and femoral neck BMD were measured at baseline and annually by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Nonvertebral fractures (i.e. humerus, wrist, hip, patella, tibia/fibula, ankle, metatarsal, rib/sternum, clavicle, scapula, sacrum, and pelvis) were assessed by self-report. Demographic and patient characteristics were collected at baseline. The OPAQ 2.0 (osteoporosis-specific HRQoL questionnaire) was administered at baseline and annually, alongside a generic measure of quality of life (Nottingham Health Profile [NHP]) and a preference-based measure (Health Utilities Index [HUI]).

OPAQ version 2.0

The OPAQ 2.0 is a validated, self-administered HRQoL instrument that consists of 67 questions (Additional file 1). It contains 6 questions about general health, overall HRQoL, and current living situation; 12 questions about importance of daily activity; and 49 questions in 14 osteoporosis-targeted domains, which yielded 4 composite dimensions when combined through factor analyses (Additional file 2): physical function, emotional status, symptoms, and social interaction. The physical function dimension includes 6 domains: walking/bending, standing/sitting, dressing/reaching, household/self-care, transfers, and usual work. The emotional status dimension includes 4 domains: fear of falls, level of tension, body image, and independence. The symptoms dimension includes 2 domains: back pain and fatigue. The social interaction dimension includes 2 domains: social activity and support of family and friends. Measurement properties of the 4 composite dimensions have been reported previously [6].

The developer’s scoring algorithms for the OPAQ 2.0 are described below [9, 10]).
  1. 1.

    Selecting individual questions: A total of 48 questions (Questions 7 through 55) are used to create 14 OPAQ domains. All 48 questions take on values 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

     
  2. 2.

    Recoding: Because the OPAQ 2.0 is scored such that a high value indicates better health status, it was necessary to recode several items before calculating domain and dimension scores to avoid systematic response biases. Thus, 17 of the 48 questions were reverse-scored so that a response of 5 indicates the best possible quality of life, and 1 indicates the worst quality of life. For the remaining items, 1 indicated the best possible quality of life and 5 indicated the worst quality of life.

     
  3. 3.

    Imputing missing data: A missing value was imputed only if at least one-half of the questions, within the same domain, were answered. If so, the missing value was replaced by the average of the nonmissing values in the same scale.

     
  4. 4.

    Forming a domain score: Values within the same domain were added to form a domain score. If more than one-half of the question responses were missing, the domain score was set to missing.

     
  5. 5.

    Transformation of domain scores: All domain scores were transformed to a range of 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the best HRQoL.

     

The NHP and HUI were scored according to the user manuals. The NHP domain scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating lower level of distress (or better quality of life) [18]. The HUI scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health utility [19]. Both NHP and HUI have previously been validated [18, 19].

Statistical analyses

Psychometric properties of the OPAQ 2.0 domains were evaluated by standard statistical techniques. Internal consistency reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (>0.7 was considered acceptable) [20].

Construct validity was tested in 2 ways. First, convergent validity between OPAQ 2.0 domains and corresponding NHP domains and HUI scores were examined by use of Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Correlations, which demonstrate validity, typically range from 0.30 to 0.80 [21]. We hypothesized that the OPAQ 2.0 domain scores would be significantly and meaningfully associated with corresponding NHP domains and HUI scores (e.g. OPAQ 2.0 walking/bending vs. NHP mobility, and OPAQ 2.0 back pain vs. NHP pain). By use of a criterion suggested by Guilford and Fruchter [21], a significant correlation coefficient ≤ -0.30 or ≥0.30 [absolute value], between the OPAQ 2.0 domain and corresponding NHP domain and HUI score was considered meaningful (i.e. supportive of the construct validity of the OPAQ 2.0). Second, discriminant validity was assessed by comparing OPAQ 2.0 domain scores between several known groups by using analysis of covariance with country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions included in the model:
  1. 1.

    Presence of prevalent vertebral fracture (0 vs. ≥1, 0–1 vs. ≥2, and 0 vs. ≥2) [6, 14].

     
  2. 2.

    Presence of prevalent osteoporotic nonvertebral fracture (0 vs. ≥1 and 0–1 vs. >1) [22]. Nonvertebral fractures included 12 locations: humerus, wrist, hip, patella, tibia/fibula, ankle, metatarsal, rib/sternum, clavicle, scapula, sacrum, and pelvis.

     
  3. 3.

    Trend analysis for age (<65, 65 ≤ age ≤70, and >70) [23].

     
  4. 4.

    Baseline femoral neck BMD T-scores (≥ −2.5 vs. < −2.5) [24].

     

In each of the known groups above, we hypothesized that OPAQ 2.0 domain scores would be lower for the former group when compared to those of the latter group. An additional analysis was performed, by using multiple linear regression models, to examine the differences in OPAQ 2.0 domain scores with an increasing number of prevalent vertebral fractures.

Mean changes in OPAQ 2.0 domains from baseline to endpoint, were compared between patients with and without incident vertebral fractures. Incident fracture is a meaningful clinical endpoint for patients with established osteoporosis, and it was the primary endpoint in the MORE study. It was hypothesized that HRQoL would decrease among patients with incident vertebral fractures; therefore, a HRQoL instrument with good responsiveness would show differences between those patients who have incident fractures versus those who do not. Responsiveness (i.e. sensitivity to clinical change) was assessed by comparing OPAQ 2.0 score change from baseline to study endpoint between patients with and without incident vertebral fractures, by using ANCOVA adjusted for country of origin.

Results

The demographic and clinical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. The 1477 women were predominantly white (96%) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 68.4 (6.8) years. Prevalent vertebral fractures were found in 70% (n =1038) of women; the mean (standard deviation) number of prevalent vertebral fractures (40 days before baseline) was 1.32 (1.38).
Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics

Parameter

Value

Sample size, N

1477

Age, years, mean (SD)

68.42 (6.81)

Body mass index, kg/cm 2 , mean (SD)

25.73 (4.34)

Years postmenopause, mean (SD)

20.94 (8.65)

Racial origin, white, n (%)

1417 (96%)

Prevalent vertebral fracture a , n (%)

1038 (70%)

Femoral neck BMD T-scores, mean (SD), [min, max]

−2.39 (0.57), [−4.5, 0.03]

Country of origin, n (%)

 

Australia

63 (4.3%)

Canada

116 (7.9%)

New Zealand

21 (1.4%)

United States

1277 (86%)

Smoking status a (yes vs. no, n)

180 vs. 1271

Alcohol consumption (yes vs. no, n)

306 vs. 1171

Number of prevalent vertebral fracture a

 

Mean (SD)

1.32 (1.38)

>Zero vs. zero

1038 vs. 439

Number of osteoporotic nonvertebral fracture

 

Mean (SD)

0.98 (1.24)

>Zero vs. zero

797 vs. 680

Baseline lumbar spine BMD, mean (SD), [min, max]

−2.51 (1.20), [−6.0, 3.0]

Family history of osteoporosis (yes vs. no/unknown)

469 vs. 1008

History of hysterectomy (yes vs. no, n)

411 vs. 1066

Marital status a (married vs. other, n)

823 vs. 648

Years of education, mean (SD)

13.81 (3.03)

Number of preexisting conditions, mean (SD)

10.37 (5.92)

Abbreviations: BMD = bone mineral density; min = minimum; max = maximum; n/N = number; SD = standard deviation; vs. = versus.

aTwenty-six subjects had no record of smoking status; six subjects had no record of marital status; three subjects had no record regarding number of prevalent vertebral fracture.

Table 2 summarizes baseline distribution of scores and Cronbach’s alpha for each OPAQ 2.0 domain. The internal consistency of 9 domains were acceptable (Cronbach’s alphas >0.7) and 4 domains had Cronbach’s alphas between 0.6 and 0.7 (dressing/reaching [0.68], household/self-care [0.61], fatigue [0.68], and social activity [0.66]).
Table 2

Baseline distribution and internal consistency of OPAQ scales

OPAQ Scales

N

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Cronbach’s Alpha

Walking/bending

1471

84.24

18.0

4

100

0.82

Standing/sitting

1472

78.71

22.2

0

100

0.73

Dressing/reaching

1471

92.05

16.4

0

100

0.68

Household/self-care

1469

91.58

14.9

13

100

0.61

Transfers

1468

90.18

19.0

0

100

0.88

Usual work

1471

90.52

18.1

0

100

N/A

Fear of falls

1473

71.86

20.8

0

100

0.82

Level of tension

1469

66.95

18.0

10

100

0.90

Body image

1468

64.56

25.9

0

100

0.76

Independence

1469

82.75

17.8

0

100

0.71

Back pain

1475

71.72

24.6

0

100

0.86

Fatigue

1472

61.82

19.6

0

100

0.68

Social activity

1470

40.17

19.4

0

100

0.66

Support, family and friends

1469

85.06

20.8

0

100

0.78

Abbreviations: N/A = not applicable, the scale of Usual Work only has one OPAQ item 44; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire; SD = standard deviation.

As expected, correlations were moderate and significant for similar OPAQ 2.0 domains and NHP domains and HUI scores. Table 3 provides a comprehensive summary of correlations between OPAQ 2.0 and the other 2 instruments (NHP and HUI). All correlations between OPAQ 2.0 and NHP were negative, which indicates that better HRQoL measured by OPAQ 2.0 was correlated with lower levels of distress measured by NHP. Correlations for OPAQ 2.0 walking/bending versus NHP physical mobility (r = −0.744) and OPAQ 2.0 back pain versus NHP pain (r = −0.669) were substantial. Correlations between OPAQ 2.0 and HUI were positive, which indicates better HRQoL measured by OPAQ 2.0 was correlated with high utility score measured by HUI. Correlations between all NHP domains and the OPAQ 2.0 domain for body image were < |0.35| and were statistically significant (p <0.0001). Correlations between the NHP domains and OPAQ 2.0 domains social activity (NHP physical mobility r = −0.094, NHP pain r = −0.075, NHP sleep r = −0.089; p <0.05) and support of family and friends (NHP physical mobility r = −0.096, NHP pain r = −0.093; p <0.05) were < |0.35| and were statistically significant. Similarly, correlations between HUI scores and OPAQ 2.0 domains were <0.3 for body image (r =0.266, p <0.0001), social activity (r =0.115, p <0.05), and support of family and friends (r =0.093, p <0.05).
Table 3

Convergent validity: association between OPAQ, HUI, and NHP scales

OPAQ Scales

NHP Emotional Reaction

NHP Energy

NHP Physical Mobility

NHP Pain

NHP Sleep

NHP Social Interaction

HUI

Walking/bending

−0.318

−0.567

−0.744

−0.609

−0.321

−0.226

0.525

Standing/sitting

−0.293

−0.524

−0.710

−0.667

−0.308

−0.196

0.491

Dressing/reaching

−0.211

−0.369

−0.567

−0.435

−0.213

−0.166

0.326

Household/self-care

−0.189

−0.380

−0.569

−0.441

−0.194

−0.171

0.336

Transfers

−0.254

−0.453

−0.679

−0.598

−0.279

−0.178

0.417

Usual work

−0.294

−0.509

−0.554

−0.468

−0.287

−0.230

0.401

Fear of falls

−0.352

−0.462

−0.607

−0.459

−0.304

−0.209

0.456

Level of tension

−0.587

−0.434

−0.312

−0.279

−0.378

−0.349

0.341

Body image

−0.249

−0.307

−0.319

−0.290

−0.227

−0.153

0.266

Independence

−0.304

−0.453

−0.571

−0.444

−0.289

−0.230

0.403

Back pain

−0.294

−0.493

−0.648

−0.669

−0.335

−0.173

0.496

Fatigue

−0.407

−0.607

−0.476

−0.455

−0.481

−0.246

0.443

Social activity

−0.156

−0.148

−0.094*

−0.075*

−0.089*

−0.214

0.115*

Support, family and friends

−0.293

−0.171

−0.096*

−0.093*

−0.105

−0.305

0.093*

Abbreviations: HUI = Health Utilities Index; NHP = Nottingham Health Profile; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire.

Values shown are Pearson correlation coefficients.

*p <0.05; All other p-values <0.0001.

All but 2 OPAQ 2.0 domains (level of tension and support of family and friends) were able to discriminate between patients with or without prevalent vertebral fractures and were associated with a worsening trend with increased number of vertebral fractures (Table 4).
Table 4

Discriminative properties with respect to prevalent vertebral fractures

OPAQ Scales

Mean Number of Prevalent Vertebral Fractures

p-value

0 (n =436)

1 (n =563)

2 (n =257)

3 (n =102)

≥ 4 (n =116)

Linear Trenda

0 vs. ≥1b

0-1 vs. ≥2

0 vs. ≥2

Walking/bending

87.78

85.12

83.68

78.37

72.82

<0.0001***

0.0054*

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

Standing/sitting

85.20

79.12

76.78

70.87

63.15

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

Dressing/reaching

93.60

92.93

91.93

87.75

85.78

<0.0001***

0.4923

0.0030*

0.0557

Household/self-care

94.63

92.28

89.84

86.94

84.48

<0.0001***

0.0076*

<0.0001***

<.00001***

Transfers

93.55

90.15

90.60

82.84

83.03

<0.0001***

0.0030*

0.0012*

0.0002**

Usual work

93.92

91.29

89.26

86.39

80.22

<0.0001***

0.0078*

<0.0001***

0.0002**

Fear of falls

76.51

72.36

70.38

64.47

61.47

<0.0001***

0.0030*

<0.0001***

<.00001***

Level of tension

65.60

68.63

66.94

64.33

66.38

0.3084

0.0604

0.1486

0.8017

Body image

68.95

64.51

63.48

59.42

54.89

<0.0001***

0.0005**

0.0006**

0.0003**

Independence

86.41

83.26

81.20

77.02

74.78

<0.0001***

0.0026*

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

Back pain

78.92

71.97

69.72

61.60

56.61

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

Fatigue

63.62

62.34

61.33

56.19

58.26

0.0005**

0.1631

0.0054*

0.0141*

Social activity

39.69

41.12

38.28

39.71

41.59

0.0060*

0.5474

0.0030*

0.0468*

Support, family and friends

83.58

85.51

84.55

89.09

85.67

0.4562

0.2150

0.6822

0.4006

Abbreviations: n = number; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire; vs. = versus.

*p <0.05; **p <0.001; ***p <0.0001.

ap-values for linear trend based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

bp-values based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

Table 5 provides results related to discriminant validity, against specific known groups. For presence of prevalent osteoporotic nonvertebral fracture (0 vs. ≥1), 3 out of the 14 domains reached statistical significance (household/self-care, transfers, and fear of falls). When 0–1 versus >1 osteoporotic nonvertebral fractures were compared, 7 of the 14 domains reached statistical significance (walking/bending, standing/sitting, household/self-care, transfers, fear of falls, back pain, and fatigue), and these 7 OPAQ 2.0 domains were able to detect a linear trend. For femoral neck BMD T-scores (≥ −2.5 vs. < −2.5), 6 domains (walking/bending, dressing/reaching, household/self-care, usual work, fear of falls, and independence) were statistically significant (p <0.05 or p <0.001). Overall, older patients had lower HRQoL, 7 domains (household/self-care, fear of falls, level of tension, independence, fatigue, social activity, and support of family and friends) for <65, 65 ≤ age ≤70, and >70 detected a linear trend, while 4 domains (walking/bending, standing/sitting, household/self-care, and transfers) reached statistical significance (Table 6).
Table 5

Discriminative properties with prevalent osteoporotic nonvertebral fracture and femoral neck BMD

OPAQ Scales

Osteoporotic Nonvertebral Fracture

Baseline Femoral Neck BMD T-score

0 (n =680)

≥ 1 (n =797)

p-value 0 vs. ≥1

0-1 (n =1096)

> 1 (n =381)

p-value 0–1 vs. >1

Linear Trenda

≥ −2.5 (n =884)

< −2.5 (n =585)

p-valueb

Walking/bending

85.66

83.03

0.0645

85.29

81.22

0.0187*

0.0109*

84.90

83.23

0.0009**

Standing/sitting

80.10

77.53

0.1900

79.95

75.18

0.0363*

0.0219*

79.32

77.79

0.0591

Dressing/reaching

92.66

91.52

0.7054

92.15

91.75

0.4842

0.9948

92.69

91.07

0.0292*

Household/self-care

93.33

90.08

0.0025*

92.40

89.24

0.0422*

0.0076*

92.73

89.83

0.0014*

Transfers

92.23

88.43

0.0038*

91.56

86.20

0.0004**

0.0011*

89.96

90.51

0.4672

Usual work

91.65

89.55

0.2040

91.28

88.32

0.1198

0.1692

91.64

88.81

0.0030*

Fear of falls

74.87

69.28

<0.0001***

73.89

66.03

<0.0001***

<0.0001***

73.02

70.09

0.0061*

Level of tension

67.00

66.91

0.8235

67.17

66.34

0.6539

0.8418

66.90

67.04

0.9125

Body image

65.43

63.82

0.4723

65.46

62.00

0.1254

0.2605

64.41

64.79

0.8934

Independence

83.91

81.76

0.2340

83.44

80.76

0.2742

0.0605

84.01

80.83

0.0040*

Back pain

73.55

70.17

0.0544

73.26

67.31

0.0065*

0.0045*

72.25

70.92

0.1295

Fatigue

62.89

60.91

0.1529

62.71

59.28

0.0291*

0.0343*

62.04

61.49

0.2692

Social activity

39.73

40.54

0.9755

39.90

40.95

0.9519

0.5441

40.43

39.78

0.1497

Support, family and friends

84.49

85.55

0.5963

84.85

85.66

0.6097

0.4871

84.81

85.44

0.8636

Abbreviations: BMD = bone mineral density; n = number; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire; vs. = versus.

a,bp-values based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; ***p < 0.0001.

Table 6

Discriminative properties with respect to age

 

Mean Age

p-value

OPAQ Scales

< 65 (n =427)

65 ≤ x ≤70 (n =378)

> 70 (n =672)

Linear Trenda

p-valueb

Walking/bending

85.40

85.27

82.92

0.3982

0.0285*

Standing/sitting

80.91

79.48

76.89

0.9784

0.0393*

Dressing/reaching

93.81

92.58

90.64

0.1771

0.2491

Household/self-care

94.00

92.99

89.24

0.0285*

0.0095*

Transfers

91.29

90.52

89.28

0.4317

0.0111*

Usual work

92.73

91.47

88.58

0.7529

0.4834

Fear of falls

77.54

72.13

68.08

<0.0001***

0.3762

Level of tension

63.95

67.63

68.49

<0.0001***

0.6880

Body image

65.74

66.89

62.50

0.6496

0.0966

Independence

85.59

83.56

80.49

0.0029*

0.2028

Back pain

74.69

71.91

69.73

0.7442

0.0922

Fatigue

61.35

61.90

62.07

0.0016*

0.9252

Social activity

39.44

39.79

40.85

0.0034*

0.6037

Support, family and friends

82.57

85.42

86.44

<0.0001***

0.6565

Abbreviations: n = number; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; ***p < 0.0001.

ap-values for linear trend based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

bp-values based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

Table 7 provides results related to responsiveness to clinical changes (i.e. incident vertebral fractures). Women with ≥1 incident vertebral fracture generally had a greater loss in HRQoL (excluding social activity and support of family and friends) from baseline to study endpoint, compared with women without incident vertebral fractures. There were statistically significant differences in the mean change from baseline to study endpoint, between the 2 groups, in walking/bending (p <0.05), standing/sitting (p <0.05), household/self-care (p <0.001), transfers (p <0.05), usual work (p <0.05), level of tension (p <0.05), independence (p <0.05), and back pain (p <0.001); however, 6 domains (dressing/reaching, fear of falls, body image, fatigue, social activity, and support of family and friends) did not reach statistical significant differences.
Table 7

Association between incident vertebral fractures and mean change in OPAQ at endpoint

OPAQ Scales

0 Incident Vertebral Fracture (n =918)

≥ 1 Incident Vertebral Fracture (n =155)

p-valuea

Walking/bending

−1.33 ± 14.49

−5.22 ± 20.92

0.0071*

Standing/sitting

0.47 ± 17.40

−3.30 ± 22.35

0.0165*

Dressing/reaching

−1.19 ± 16.73

−3.76 ± 21.91

0.1368

Household/self-care

−0.90 ± 14.47

−5.42 ± 19.28

0.0012*

Transfers

−0.29 ± 15.53

−3.45 ± 26.57

0.0489*

Usual work

−1.12 ± 17.01

−6.09 ± 25.73

0.0011*

Fear of falls

−3.00 ± 15.72

−3.90 ± 19.23

0.4339

Level of tension

0.96 ± 14.86

−1.78 ± 14.23

0.0449*

Body image

−0.51 ± 22.01

−1.51 ± 25.67

0.8436

Independence

−0.30 ± 14.96

−4.49 ± 19.72

0.0032*

Back pain

0.71 ± 18.76

−5.60 ± 25.46

0.0004**

Fatigue

1.11 ± 16.13

−0.33 ± 14.95

0.1862

Social activity

3.68 ± 19.84

3.19 ± 19.53

0.9628

Support, family and friends

−0.01 ± 18.04

0.90 ± 19.46

0.4000

Abbreviations: n = number; OPAQ = Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire.

Results are shown as the mean ± standard deviation change from baseline to study endpoint.

a p-values based on analysis of covariance model controlling for country of origin, age, body mass index (BMI), years since menopause, smoking status (yes vs. no), alcohol consumption (yes vs. no), and number of preexisting conditions.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.

Discussion

The study assessed the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the OPAQ 2.0 in a subset of women from the MORE study population. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable for the majority of the OPAQ 2.0 domains, and construct validity was demonstrated by using convergent and discriminant analyses. Domains with good psychometric properties included walking/bending, standing/sitting, household/self-care, transfers, usual work, fear of falls, independence, and back pain. Domains with borderline psychometric properties included fatigue and social activity. Domains lacking good psychometric properties included dressing/reaching, level of tension, body image, and support of family and friends.

Previous versions of the OPAQ were tested in small populations (N =40), and the results suggested that OPAQ is a reliable, consistent, and valid instrument capable of distinguishing hierarchy of functional loss in disease states in osteoporosis [9]. This study found similar results in a larger multicenter international population of postmenopausal women. Payers are increasingly insisting on economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses (which rely on health utility assessment) for new treatments to support reimbursement decisions. In studies in which utility scores are not collected, given the high correlation between HRQoL and utility, one would expect that improvement in HRQoL may be reflected in improvements in health utility, which could aid in cost-effectiveness assessment.

The HRQoL measures are more commonly included as an outcome measure alongside BMD measurements and the assessment of vertebral fracture incidence [14, 17]. Because sudden changes in HRQoL may reflect changes in the progression of disease (e.g. subsequent fractures) and given that osteoporosis is a silent disease, (e.g. vertebral fractures or deformities may go undiagnosed and risk for fractures can still occur with a normal BMD [25]), detecting the worsening of disease early is important to manage treatment success and to avoid further consequences (e.g. hip fracture).

All but 2 OPAQ domains—level of tension and support of family and friends—were able to discriminate between patients with or without prevalent vertebral fractures and to detect a reduced HRQoL with increased number of vertebral fractures. Similar results were previously reported with the OPAQ, the Quality-of-life questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO), and the geriatric depression scale [6, 14, 15]. However, results differed in that no significant associations were seen in the social interaction domains in OPAQ 2.0, which could be due to differences between the OPAQ 2.0 and QUALEFFO.

For osteoporotic nonvertebral fractures, OPAQ 2.0 was better able to detect a reduced HRQoL and to discriminate between patients with 0 to 1 versus >1 nonvertebral fractures—where 7 of 14 domains were statistically significant and also were associated with a worsening trend with increased number of vertebral fractures—than for patients with 0 versus ≥1 fracture—where only 3 domains (household/self-care, transfers, and fear of falls) reached statistical significance. Most of the domains that did not show statistical significance are not reflective of one’s individual physical ability; they are mostly influenced by the support of external parties. Several studies have shown an adverse impact in HRQoL (mostly in the physical function, emotional status, and symptoms dimensions) with nonvertebral fractures; however, different instruments were used to measure HRQoL, and our study uniquely assessed vertebral and nonvertebral fractures separately, whereas other studies did not [22, 2628].

For femoral neck BMD T-scores, most domains did not discriminate well. This result could be because a BMD of ≤ −2.5 may not fully represent the impact of severe osteoporosis. Patients with BMD measurements above the osteoporosis threshold of −2.5 still report fractures. In the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment study, postmenopausal women with BMD ≤ −2.5 had the highest rate of fractures (18% of osteoporotic fractures and 26% of hip fractures); however, approximately 23% of women had a BMD ≤ −2.0 or ≤ −1.5 with 1 or more clinical risk factors, and though fracture rates were lower, 45% of osteoporotic fractures and 53% of hip fractures occurred in these women [29]. Most people do not know their BMD is ≤2.5 until after a BMD test is performed; however, most quality of life domain scores begin to separate quickly between low BMD groups, if a fracture has occurred.

Overall, older patients had lower HRQoL. Fractures are often undiagnosed, and 1 study revealed that osteoporosis or vertebral fracture was diagnosed in <2% of white women ≥60 years old, but the prevalence of these fractures has been found to be 20% to 30% in these women [30]. Osteoporotic fractures generally affect older patients. Vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures are primary causes for morbidity in patients with osteoporosis, and these fractures can lead to acute pain and loss of function [4, 3134]. These fractures, in turn, can lead to lower quality of life, so these results are not surprising; however, decreasing HRQoL in older patients could also be explained by additional chronic illnesses, comorbidities, and a number of other factors.

Women with ≥1 incident vertebral fracture generally had a greater loss in HRQoL from baseline to study endpoint, compared with women without incident vertebral fractures, which is consistent with previous research [6, 26, 27].

There are some important limitations that should be considered when interpreting these findings. This study was a post hoc retrospective analysis. Although the study used data from the MORE study—which was a well-controlled randomized clinical trial with a large, heterogeneous osteoporosis patient population and included multiple HRQoL instruments (including generic, disease-specific, and preference-based instruments)—the trial was conducted in the 1990s and some results may not be as generalizable today. We also were unable to conduct a time to event analysis on HRQoL scores between baseline and the time of vertebral fracture due to the timing of vertebral fracture assessments (baseline, and months 12, 24 and 36).

This study assessed the psychometric properties of the OPAQ at the domain level, whereas previous work focused attention on the dimension level [6, 10, 14]. Results from the current study are consistent with previous research; however, domain-level results have not been disclosed in the past, and for further development and validation of OPAQ and other osteoporosis-specific instruments, domain-level results provide useful information.

The OPAQ 2.0 is a validated, self-administered HRQoL instrument. The OPAQ 2.0 was developed to capture broader dimensions of HRQoL for patients with osteoporosis in clinical trials; however, the length of the original version of OPAQ 2.0 (67 questions) and the resulting respondent time burden could pose a concern for inclusion in clinical trials. Our findings suggest that there are domains that could be reassessed to further refine OPAQ 2.0 to develop a shorter version that has the best psychometric properties for use in clinical trials and routine patient care that follow recent United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Conclusions

Most of the domains in the 67-item OPAQ instrument (version 2.0) have demonstrated reliability, discriminant validity, and responsiveness. Despite these robust findings, there is a need in clinical trial research to limit the number of items to as few as possible and to minimize patient responder burden. The findings provided here suggest that there are several domains that do not show these criteria and that may need to be reassessed and removed for a potentially shorter and validated version of OPAQ.

Abbreviations

BMD: 

Bone mineral density

HRQoL: 

Health-related quality of life

HUI: 

Health Utilities Index

MORE: 

Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation

NHP: 

Nottingham Health Profile

OPAQ: 

Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire

OPAQ 2.0: 

OPAQ instrument version 2.0

PRO: 

Patient-reported outcomes

QUALEFFO: 

Quality-of-life questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors would like to thank Rebecca McCracken, MSPH who provided medical writing services and Teri Tucker, BA who provided editing services, both of inVentiv Health Clinical on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Eli Lilly and Company
(2)
inVentiv Clinical Solutions
(3)
Duke University Medical Center
(4)
Cedars-Sinai/UCLA

References

  1. North American Menopause Society: Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: 2010 position statement. Menopause. 2010, 17: 25-54. 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181c617e6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention: Diagnosis, and Therapy: Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001, 285: 785-795. 10.1001/jama.285.6.785.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. NIH Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases National Resource Cente: Osteoporosis Handout on Health. NIH Publication No. 11–5158. Edited by: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Information Clearinghouse. 2014, Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health,http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Bone/Osteoporosis/osteoporosis_hoh.asp,
  4. National Osteoporosis Foundation: America’s Bone Health: The State of Osteoporosis and Low Bone Mass in our Nation. 2002, Washington D.C: The FoundationGoogle Scholar
  5. World Health Organization: Constitution of the World Health Organization. 1947, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  6. Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S, Health-Related Quality of Life Subgroup of the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation study: The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation study. Arthritis Rheum. 2001, 44: 2611-2619. 10.1002/1529-0131(200111)44:11<2611::AID-ART441>3.0.CO;2-N.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gold TT, Shipp KM, Pieper CF, Duncan PW, Martinez S, Lyles KW: Group treatment improves trunk strength and psychological status in older women with vertebral fractures: Results of a randomized clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004, 52: 1471-1478. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52409.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, Segal M, Genant HK, Cummings SR: The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1998, 128: 793-800. 10.7326/0003-4819-128-10-199805150-00001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Randell AG, Bhalerao N, Nguyen TV, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA, Silverman SL: Quality of life in osteoporosis: reliability, consistency, and validity of the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 1998, 25: 1171-1179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Silverman SL: The Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire (OPAQ): A reliable and valid disease-targeted measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in osteoporosis. Qual Life Res. 2000, 9 (Suppl 1): 767-774.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Silverman SL, Mason J, Greenwald M: The Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire (OPAQ): A reliable and valid self assessment measure of quality of life in osteoporosis [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res. 1993, 8 (Suppl 1): s343-Google Scholar
  12. Silverman SL, Go K, Tou C: What is the difference in quality of life between patients with osteopenia and patients with osteoporotic fracture?. Arthritis Rheum. 1996, 39 (Suppl 9): S88-Google Scholar
  13. Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK, Christiansen C, Delmas PD, Zanchetta JR, Stakkestad J, Glüer CC, Krueger K, Cohen FJ, Eckert S, Ensrud KE, Avioli LV, Lips P, Cummings SR, for the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators: Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1999, 282: 637-645. 10.1001/jama.282.7.637.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Oleksik A, Lips P, Dawson A, Minshall ME, Shen W, Cooper C, Kanis J: Health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with low BMD with or without prevalent vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2000, 15: 1384-1392. 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.7.1384.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Silverman SL, Shen W, Minshall ME, Xie S, Moses KH: Prevalence of depressive symptoms in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density and/or prevalent vertebral fracture: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) study. J Rheumatol. 2007, 34: 140-144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Committee for Medical Products for Human Use (CHMP): Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Edited by: Efficacy Working Party, Committee For Medicinal Products For Human Use (CHMP). 2005, London, UK,http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf,
  17. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: patient report outcome measures: use in clinical medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance document. Edited by: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Food and Drug Administration. 2009, Silver Spring, MD,http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf,
  18. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E: The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med. 1981, 15A (3 Pt 1): 221-229.Google Scholar
  19. Feeny DH, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW: Health utilities index. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Edited by: Spilker B. 1996, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 85-95.Google Scholar
  20. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric Theory. 1994, New York: McGraw-Hill, 3Google Scholar
  21. Guilford JP, Fruchter B: Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 1973, New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  22. Roux C, Wyman A, Hooven FH, Gehlbach SH, Adachi JD, Chapurlat RD, Compston JE, Cooper C, Díez-Pérez A, Greenspan SL, Lacroix AZ, Netelenbos JC, Pfeilschifter J, Rossini M, Saag KG, Sambrook PN, Silverman S, Siris ES, Watts NB, Boonen S, GLOW Investigators: Burden of non-hip, non-vertebral fractures on quality of life in postmenopausal women: The Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Osteoporos Int. 2012, 23: 2863-2871. 10.1007/s00198-012-1935-8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Borgström F, Lekander I, Ivergård M, Ström O, Svedbom A, Alekna V, Bianchi ML, Clark P, Curiel MD, Dimai HP, Jürisson M, Kallikorm R, Lesnyak O, McCloskey E, Nassonov E, Sanders KM, Silverman S, Tamulaitiene M, Thomas T, Tosteson AN, Jönsson B, Kanis JA: The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS)—quality of life during the first 4 months after fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2013, 24: 811-823. 10.1007/s00198-012-2240-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sambrook PN, Silverman SL, Cauley JA, Recknor C, Olson M, Su G, Boonen S, Black D, Adachi JD, HORIZON Pivotal Fracture Trial: Health-related quality of life and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the HORIZON-PFT. Bone. 2011, 48: 1298-1304. 10.1016/j.bone.2011.03.719.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. World Health Organization: Assessment of Osteoporosis at Primary Health Care Level. Report of a WHO Study Group. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 843. 2004, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  26. Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Olszynski WP, Brown JP, Hanley DA, Sebaldt RJ, Petrie A, Tenenhouse A, Stephenson GF, Papaioannou A, Guyatt GH, Goldsmith CH: The impact of incident vertebral and non-vertebral fractures on health related quality of life in postmenopausal women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2002, 3: 11-10.1186/1471-2474-3-11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Oglesby AK, Minshall ME, Shen W, Xie S, Silverman SL: The impact of incident vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures on health-related quality of life in established postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the teriparatide randomized, placebo-controlled trial in postmenopausal women. J Rheumatol. 2003, 30: 1579-1583.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Randell AG, Nguyen TV, Bhalerao N, Silverman SL, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA: Deterioration in the quality of life following hip fracture: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2000, 11: 460-466. 10.1007/s001980070115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Siris ES, Chen YT, Abbott A, Barrett-Connor E, Miller PD, Wehren LE, Berger ML: Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacological intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2004, 164: 1108-1112. 10.1001/archinte.164.10.1108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gehlbach SH, Fournier M, Bigelow C: Recognition of osteoporosis by primary care physicians. Am J Public Health. 2002, 92: 271-273. 10.2105/AJPH.92.2.271.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Kanis JA, Minne WH, Meunier PJ, Ziegler R, Allender E: Quality of life and vertebral osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 1992, 2: 161-163. 10.1007/BF01623919.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Leidig G, Minne HW, Sauer P, Wüster C, Wüster J, Lojen M, Raue F, Zigler R: A study of complaints and their relation to vertebral destruction in patients with osteoporosis. Bone Miner. 1990, 8: 217-229. 10.1016/0169-6009(90)90107-Q.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lips P, Cooper C, Agnusdei D, Caulin F, Egger P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Liberman U, Minne H, Reeve J, Reginster JY, de Vernejoul MC, Wiklund I: Quality of life as outcome in the treatment of osteoporosis: the development of a questionnaire for quality of life by the European Foundation for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 1997, 7: 36-38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD: Pain and disability associated with new vertebral fractures and other spinal conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994, 47: 231-239. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90004-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/374/prepub

Copyright

© Shen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement