ArticleArchives of internal medicine2009
A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better?
Article in Archives of internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A systematic review on the performance of fracture risk assessment tools: FRAX, DeFRA, FRA-HS.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2023Pooled it
- Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.Archives of osteoporosis · 2016Pooled it
- Risk Assessment Tools for Osteoporosis Screening in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.Current osteoporosis reports · 2015Pooled it
- Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2014Pooled it
- Standard radiography: untapped potential in the assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk.European radiology · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- FRAX® tool, the WHO algorithm to predict osteoporotic fractures: the first analysis of its discriminative and predictive ability in the Spanish FRIDEX cohort.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2012Trial
- Objective Physical Performance Predicts 10-Year Fracture Risk Without Densitometry in Older Men and Women: Development and Head-to-Head Comparison with FRAX in MrOS and SOF.Calcified tissue international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Mandibular Bone Alterations by Panoramic Radiography: A Potential Tool in the Identification of Signs of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Hip Fracture Risk Assessment Tools for Adults Aged 80 Years and Older.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Utilizing nomograms to predict prevalent vertebral fracture risk: An analysis of dysmobility syndrome in a community-dwelling population.Biomedical journal · 2022Article
- Comparison between real-world practice and application of the FRAX algorithm in the treatment of osteoporosis.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Article
- Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.Aging and disease · 2022Review
- Cross-sectional osteoporotic risk prediction with the FRAX without BMD in male and female patients attending OPD in a community health center of Bihar.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Predictive Performance of the FRAX Tool Calibrated for Spain vs. an Age and Sex Model: Prospective Cohort Study with 9082 Women and Men Followed for up to 8 Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparing three machine learning approaches to design a risk assessment tool for future fractures: predicting a subsequent major osteoporotic fracture in fracture patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA Web-based risk assessment tool (FRAX) using clinical risk factors with and without femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) has been incorporated into clinical guidelines regarding treatment to prevent fractures. However, it is uncertain whether prediction with FRAX models is superior to that based on parsimonious models.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study in 6252 women 65 years or older to compare the value of FRAX models that include BMD with that of parsimonious models based on age and BMD alone for prediction of fractures. We also compared FRAX models without BMD with simple models based on age and fracture history alone. Fractures (hip, major osteoporotic [hip, clinical vertebral, wrist, or humerus], and any clinical fracture) were ascertained during 10 years of follow-up. Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were compared between FRAX models and simple models.
resultsThe AUC comparisons showed no differences between FRAX models with BMD and simple models with age and BMD alone in discriminating hip (AUC, 0.75 for the FRAX model and 0.76 for the simple model; P = .26), major osteoporotic (AUC, 0.68 for the FRAX model and 0.69 for the simple model; P = .51), and clinical fracture (AUC, 0.64 for the FRAX model and 0.63 for the simple model; P = .16). Similarly, performance of parsimonious models containing age and fracture history alone was nearly identical to that of FRAX models without BMD. The proportion of women in each quartile of predicted risk who actually experienced a fracture outcome did not differ between FRAX and simple models (P > or = .16).
conclusionSimple models based on age and BMD alone or age and fracture history alone predicted 10-year risk of hip, major osteoporotic, and clinical fracture as well as more complex FRAX models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.