Skip to main content

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

  • Nancy Kreiger (a1) (a2), Alan Tenenhouse (a3), Lawrence Joseph (a3), Tom Mackenzie (a4), Suzette Poliquin (a3), Jacques P. Brown (a5), Jerilynn C. Prior (a6) and Roger S. Rittmaster (a7)...

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.


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.

Hide All
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.
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.
3.Riggs BL, Melton LJ. Involutional osteoporosis. New Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1676–84.
4.Anonymous. Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94:646–50.
5.Nault N. Personal communication. Canadian Centre for Health Information, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1994.
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:1524.
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.
8.Narod S, Spasoff RA. Economic and social burden of osteoporosis. In: Current Concepts in Bone Fragility. Toronto: Springer Verlag 1984;391401.
9.Sernbo I, Johnell O. Consequences of a hip fracture: A prospective study over one year. Osteoporosis Int. 1993; 3:148–53.
10.Rubin D. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):17.
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.
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.
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):8793.
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.
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; 9:915.
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.
24.Philippaerts RM, Lefevre J. Reliability and validity of three physical activity questionnaires in Flemish males. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147:982–90.
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.
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.
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement
  • ISSN: 0714-9808
  • EISSN: 1710-1107
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-on-aging-la-revue-canadienne-du-vieillissement
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 15 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 425 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.