Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:26:21.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Notes: The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): Background, Rationale, Methods*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Nancy Kreiger ,
Alan Tenenhouse ,
Lawrence Joseph ,
Tom Mackenzie ,
Suzette Poliquin ,
Jacques P. Brown ,
Jerilynn C. Prior  and
Roger S. Rittmaster
Nancy Kreiger
Affiliation:
university of Toronto Cancer Care Ontario
Alan Tenenhouse
Affiliation:
Montreal General Hospital
Lawrence Joseph
Affiliation:
Montreal General Hospital
Tom Mackenzie
Affiliation:
Deceased
Suzette Poliquin
Affiliation:
Montreal General Hospital
Jacques P. Brown
Affiliation:
Le Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
Jerilynn C. Prior
Affiliation:
The University of British Columbia
Roger S. Rittmaster
Affiliation:
Glaxo Welkome Inc.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relatively little is known about the factors in Canada which lead to osteoporosis and its concomitant fractures. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) is a prospective cohort study which will estimate the incidence and prevalence of declining bone mass and fractures. The impact of osteoporosis in Canada will be assessed, including regional variation and the effect of various risk factors. The study will provide information for developing prevention programs. The cohort has been drawn from a random population-based sample of non-institutionalized men and women 25 years old or more and living within 50 km. of nine cities in Canada. Through telephone interviews 9,423 participants have been recruited. All answered an extensive questionnaire, and had physical measurements related to bone quality taken. This paper details the CaMos baseline and five-year follow-up protocol.

Résumé

On en sait relativement peu sur les facteurs au Canada qui entraînent l'ostéoporose et ses fractures concomitantes. L'étude canadienne multicentrique sur l'ostéoporose (CaMos) est une étude prospective par cohorte qui évaluera l'incidence et la prévalence de la perte de la masse osseuse et des fractures. Les répercussions de l'ostéoporose au Canada seront évaluées, en tenant compte de la variation régionale et les conséquences des divers facteurs de risque. L'étude fournira de l'information en vue d'élaborer des programmes de prévention. La cohorte est constituée d'un échantillon de population choisi au hasard d'hommes et de femmes non-institutionnalisés, âgés de 25 ans ou plus, qui habitent dans un rayon de 50 km. de neuf villes canadiennes. 9423 sujets ont été recrutés par des entrevues téléphoniques. Tous les participants ont répondu à un questionnaire approfondi et se sont soumis à des mesures de la qualité osseuse. Cet article fournit les détails de base de CaMos ainsi que le protocole suivi de cinq ans.

Keywords

CohortFracturesOccurrenceOsteoporosisRisk FactorsPopulation-Based.Cohortefracturesoccurrenceosteoporosefacteurs de risqueétude de population.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Automne/Fall 1999 , pp. 376 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Nevitt, MC, Cummings, SR. Type offall and risk of hip and wrist fractures: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Am Geriat. Soc 1993; 41:1226–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Allander, E, Lindahl, BB, the MEDOS Study Group. The Mediterranean Osteoporosis Study (MEDOS): Theoretical and practical issues of a major international project on hip fracture epidemiology. Bone 1993; 14(suppl 1): S37–S43.Google Scholar
3.Riggs, BL, Melton, LJ. Involutional osteoporosis. New Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1676–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Anonymous. Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94:646–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Nault, N. Personal communication. Canadian Centre for Health Information, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1994.Google Scholar
6.Geree, R, O'Brien, B, Pettitt, D, Cuddy, L, Ferraz, M, Adachi, J. An assessment of the burden of illness due to osteoporosis in Canada. Journal Soc Obstetrics and Gynecol Canada 1996; supplement:15–24.Google Scholar
7.Papadimitropoulos, EA, Coyte, PC, Josse, RG, Greenwood, CE. Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 157(10): 1357–63.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Narod, S, Spasoff, RA. Economic and social burden of osteoporosis. In: Current Concepts in Bone Fragility. Toronto: Springer Verlag 1984;391–401.Google Scholar
9.Sernbo, I, Johnell, O. Consequences of a hip fracture: A prospective study over one year. Osteoporosis Int. 1993; 3:148–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Rubin, D. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Feeny, D, Torrance, G, Goldsmith, C, Furlong, W, Boyle, M. A multi-attribute approach to population health status. Working paper #94–5, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario 1994.Google Scholar
12.Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF–36): 1) Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992; 30:473–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res 1975; 12:189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.O'Neill, TW, Marsden, D, Silman, AJ, et al. Differences in the characteristics of responders and non-responders in a prevalence survey of vertebral osteoporosis. European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group. Osteoporosis Int. 1995; 5(5):327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Cummings, SR, Black, DM, Nevitt, MC, et al. Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. JAMA 1990; 263:665–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Dargent-Molina, P, Favier, F, Grandjean, H, et al. Fall-related factors and risk of hip fractures: the EPIDOS prospective study. Epidemiologie de L'osteoporose. Lancet 1996; 348(9021): 145–9.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Kroger, H, Tuppurainen, M, Honkanen, R, et al. Bone mineral density and risk factors for osteoporosis-a population-based study of 1600 perimenopausal women. Calcif. Tissue Int. 1994; 55(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Jones, G, Nguyen, T, Sambrook, PN, et al. Symptomatic fracture incidence in elderly men and women: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES). Osteoporosis Int. 1994; 4(5):277–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Spector, TD, McCloskey, EV, Doyle, DV, et al. Prevalence of vertebral fracture in women and the relationship with bone density and symptoms: the Ching-ford Study. J Bone Miner Res 1993; 8(7):817–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.O'Neill, TW, Marsden, D, Matthis, C, Raspe, H, Silman, AJ. Survey response rates: national and regional differences in a European multicentre study of vertebral osteoporosis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995; 49(1):87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Ledoux, M, Lambert, J, Reeder, BA, Despres, JP. Correlation between cardiovascular disease risk factors and simple anthropométrie measures. Canadian Heart Health Surveys Research Group. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 157(suppl 1):S46–S53.Google Scholar
22.Hartman, AM, Block, G, Chan, W, Williams, J, McAdams, M, Banks, WL Jr, Robbins, A. Reproducibility of a self-administered diet history questionnaire administered three times over three different seasons. Nutr Cancer 1996; 9:9–15.Google Scholar
23.Golbahm, RA, van't Veer, P, van den Brandt, PA, van't Hof, MA, Brants, HA, Sturmans, F, Hermus, RJ. Reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire and stability of dietary habits determined from five annually repeated measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 1995; 49:420–29.Google Scholar
24.Philippaerts, RM, Lefevre, J. Reliability and validity of three physical activity questionnaires in Flemish males. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147:982–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Bean, JA, Leeper, JD, Wallace, RB, Sherman, BM, Jagger, H. Variations in the reporting of menstrual histories. Am J Epidemiol 1979; 109:181–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Persson, I, Bergkvist, L, Adami, HO. Reliability of women's histories of climacteric oestrogen treatment assessed by prescription forms. Int J Epidemiol 1987; 16:222–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Armstrong, BK, White, E, Saracci, R. Reducing measurement error and its effects In: Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar