Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18751937›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2008

Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX--assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK.

J A Kanis, E V McCloskey, H Johansson, O Strom, F Borgstrom, A Oden, National Osteoporosis Guideline Group

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 224 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
224citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

224 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
    Guideline
  8. A framework for the development of guidelines for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2012
    Pooled it
  9. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2010
    Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

164 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J A KanisWHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. w.j.pontefract@shef.ac.uk
E V McCloskey
H Johansson
O Strom
F Borgstrom
A Oden
National Osteoporosis Guideline Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledAssessment and intervention thresholds are developed and proposed in men aged over 50 years and postmenopausal women for the UK based on fracture probability from the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX).

introductionThe FRAX tool has recently become available to compute the 10-year probability of fractures in men and women from clinical risk factors (CRFs) with or without the measurement of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). The aim of this study was to develop a case-finding strategy for men and women from the UK at high risk of osteoporotic fracture by delineating the fracture probabilities at which BMD testing or intervention should be recommended.

methodsFracture probabilities were computed using the FRAX tool calibrated to the epidemiology of fracture and death in the UK. The relationship between cost effectiveness and fracture probability used the source data from a prior publication that examined the cost effectiveness of generic alendronate in the UK. An intervention threshold was set by age in men and women, based on the fracture probability equivalent to that of women with a history of a prior osteoporosis related fracture. In addition, assessment thresholds for the use of BMD testing were explored. Assessment thresholds for the measurement of BMD followed current practice guidelines where individuals were considered to be eligible for assessment in the presence of one or more CRF. An upper assessment threshold (i.e. a fracture probability above which patients could be treated without recourse to BMD) was based on optimisation of the positive predictive value of the assessment tool. The consequences of assessment and intervention thresholds on the requirement for BMD test and interventions were assessed using the distribution of clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD for women in the source cohorts used for the development of the FRAX models

resultsTreatment was cost effective at all ages when the 10-year probability of a major fracture exceeded 7%. The intervention threshold at the age of 50 years corresponded to a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture of 7.5%. This rose progressively with age to 30% at the age of 80 years, so that intervention was cost effective at all ages. Assessment thresholds for testing with BMD (6-9% at the age of 50 years) also rose with age (18-36% at the age of 80 years). The use of these thresholds in a case-finding strategy would identify 6-20% of women as eligible for BMD testing and 23-46% as eligible for treatment, depending on age. The same threshold can be used in men.

conclusionThe study provides a method of developing management algorithms for osteoporosis from the estimation of fracture probabilities, rather than those based on BMD alone or BMD with single or multiple CRFs.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAlgorithmsBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesFemaleFemur NeckFractures, BoneHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.