E-Poster Presentation ESA-SRB-ANZBMS 2021

Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported use of medicines for bone health (#747)

Sarah M Hosking 1 , Paris Rafeld 1 , Mia Percival 2 , Georgie B Lee 1 , Lana J Williams 1 , Julie A Pasco 1 3 4 5 , Amy T Page 2 6 7
  1. IMPACT Institute, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  2. Pharmacy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
  4. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  5. University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  6. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  7. School of Allied Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Background: Self-reported medicine use is often used in both research and clinical settings. This systematic review investigates the accuracy of self-reported medicine use compared to dispensed medicines for bone health.

Methods: Studies were included in the systematic review if the population of interest was community-dwelling or population-based samples of adults, taking at least one regular medicine for bone health (‘Drugs for treatment of bone diseases’ ATC code M05 and ‘Mineral supplements’ A11). Full text English-language papers published in peer reviewed journals were included where the full text paper was available. Studies were included if they compared self-reported medicines for bone health to dispensed medicines records. Dispensed medicines were sourced from either administrative claims data or from pharmacy dispensing records.  Data were extracted and sensitivity and specificity, were calculated using Review Manager software version 5.4.1.

Results: The initial search returned 4465 studies, of which 147 full-text papers were retrieved for further consideration. Five studies met our selection criteria, representing a total of 8223 participants (5393 female). Three studies investigated ‘Drugs for treatment of bone diseases’, while the remaining studies investigated both ‘Drugs for treatment of bone diseases’ and ‘Mineral supplements’. For ‘Drugs for treatment of bone diseases’ sensitivity ranged 0.54-0.80 while specificity ranged 0.97-1.00. We were unable to determine sensitivity for one study of pregnant women as no participants used bone related medicines. The highest sensitivity was demonstrated in a population of postmenopausal women, while the lowest sensitivity was demonstrated in an Australian population of adults aged over 45yr. For ‘Mineral supplements’ sensitivity ranged 0.67-0.71 while specificity ranged 0.92-1.

Discussion: Medicines for bone health demonstrated good specificity but only moderate sensitivity. This suggests self-report may be useful in identifying individuals who are not using medicines for bone health but may not capture all participants using medicines for bone health.