140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15636469)
1. Evaluation of proposals of Belgian Social Security Institute for reimbursement of bone densitometry tests. Toward a cost-effective strategy for osteoporosis screening?
Ben Sedrine W; Ethgen O; Devogelaer JP; Depresseux G; Kaufman JM; Goemaere S; Reginster JY
Aging Clin Exp Res; 2004 Oct; 16(5):413-9. PubMed ID: 15636469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interest of a prescreening questionnaire to reduce the cost of bone densitometry.
Ben Sedrine W; Broers P; Devogelaer JP; Depresseux G; Kaufman JM; Goemaere S; Reginster JY
Osteoporos Int; 2002 May; 13(5):434-42. PubMed ID: 12086356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Screening for osteoporosis using easily obtainable biometrical data: diagnostic accuracy of measured, self-reported and recalled BMI, and related costs of bone mineral density measurements.
van der Voort DJ; Brandon S; Dinant GJ; van Wersch JW
Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(3):233-9. PubMed ID: 10824239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Primary prevention of osteoporosis: mass screening scenario or prescreening with questionnaires? An economic perspective.
Richy F; Ethgen O; Bruyere O; Mawet A; Reginster JY
J Bone Miner Res; 2004 Dec; 19(12):1955-60. PubMed ID: 15537437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bone mineral density referral for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using quantitative ultrasound as a prescreening tool in postmenopausal women from the general population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Marín F; López-Bastida J; Díez-Pérez A; Sacristán JA;
Calcif Tissue Int; 2004 Mar; 74(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 14708042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) in a sample of white women from Belgium.
Ben Sedrine W; Devogelaer JP; Kaufman JM; Goemaere S; Depresseux G; Zegels B; Deroisy R; Reginster JY
Bone; 2001 Oct; 29(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 11595621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Osteoporosis case finding in the general practice: phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry with and without risk factors for osteoporosis to select postmenopausal women eligible for lumbar spine and hip densitometry.
Gasser KM; Mueller C; Zwahlen M; Kaufmann M; Fuchs G; Perrelet R; Abetel G; Bürgi U; Lippuner K
Osteoporos Int; 2005 Nov; 16(11):1353-62. PubMed ID: 15711776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis: selection by body composition.
Michaëlsson K; Bergström R; Mallmin H; Holmberg L; Wolk A; Ljunghall S
Osteoporos Int; 1996; 6(2):120-6. PubMed ID: 8704349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women.
Yoshimura M; Moriwaki K; Noto S; Takiguchi T
Osteoporos Int; 2017 Feb; 28(2):643-652. PubMed ID: 27743068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of accuracy and cost effectiveness of clinical criteria and BUA for referral for BMD assessment by DXA in osteoporotic and osteopenic perimenopausal subjects.
Langton CM; Langton DK; Beardsworth SA
Technol Health Care; 1999; 7(5):319-30. PubMed ID: 10543417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Kingkaew P; Maleewong U; Ngarmukos C; Teerawattananon Y
Value Health; 2012; 15(1 Suppl):S20-8. PubMed ID: 22265062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development and validation of the osteoporosis prescreening risk assessment (OPERA) tool to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density.
Salaffi F; Silveri F; Stancati A; Grassi W
Clin Rheumatol; 2005 Jun; 24(3):203-11. PubMed ID: 15549501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland.
Schwenkglenks M; Lippuner K
Osteoporos Int; 2007 Nov; 18(11):1481-91. PubMed ID: 17530156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identification of women at increased risk of osteoporosis: no need to use different screening tools at different ages.
Dargent-Molina P; Piault S; Bréart G
Maturitas; 2006 Apr; 54(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 16202546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. FRAX without bone mineral density versus osteoporosis self-assessment screening tool as predictors of osteoporosis in primary screening of individuals aged 70 and older.
Pang WY; Inderjeeth CA
J Am Geriatr Soc; 2014 Mar; 62(3):442-6. PubMed ID: 24617899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women.
Mueller D; Gandjour A
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1106-17. PubMed ID: 19706151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Economic evaluation of osteoporosis screening strategy conducted in the Province of Liège with the cooperation of Liège Province Santé].
Hiligsmann M; Bruyère O; Pire G; Reginster JY
Rev Med Liege; 2008 Oct; 63(10):588-94. PubMed ID: 19009966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Universal bone densitometry screening combined with alendronate therapy for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is highly cost-effective for elderly women.
Schousboe JT; Ensrud KE; Nyman JA; Melton LJ; Kane RL
J Am Geriatr Soc; 2005 Oct; 53(10):1697-704. PubMed ID: 16181168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cost effectiveness analysis of using quantitative ultrasound as a selective pre-screen for bone densitometry.
Sim MF; Stone MD; Phillips CJ; Cheung WY; Johansen A; Vasishta S; Pettit RJ; Evans WD
Technol Health Care; 2005; 13(2):75-85. PubMed ID: 15912005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in rural women with limited access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Ito K; Leslie WD
Osteoporos Int; 2015 Aug; 26(8):2111-9. PubMed ID: 25807913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
