ArticleCurrent osteoporosis reports2012
Fracture risk assessment: state of the art, methodologically unsound, or poorly reported?
Article in Current osteoporosis reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. The TRIPOD Group.Circulation · 2015Guideline
- External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Pooled it
- Prediction Models for Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Prophylaxis of Pain and Fractures within Feet in the Course of Osteoporosis: The Issue of Diagnosing.Pain research & management · 2020Review
- Predictive analytics in health care: how can we know it works?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Artificial intelligence, osteoporosis and fragility fractures.Current opinion in rheumatology · 2019Review
- Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019Review
- Individualized fracture risk assessment: State-of-the-art and room for improvement.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2018Review
- External validation and comparison of three prediction tools for risk of osteoporotic fractures using data from population based electronic health records: retrospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
- Osteoporosis: the emperor has no clothes.Journal of internal medicine · 2015Review
- Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2015Review
- Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement.BMC medicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of fracture risk prediction by the US Preventive Services Task Force strategy and two alternative strategies in women 50-64 years old in the Women's Health Initiative.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2014Article
- Novel assessment tools for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment.Current osteoporosis reports · 2014Review
- Osteoporosis and fracture risk in older people.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2014Article
- Conflicts at the heart of the FRAX tool.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Article
- Assessing fracture risk in people with MS: a service development study comparing three fracture risk scoring systems.BMJ open · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporotic fractures, including hip fractures, are a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality as well as a major economic burden. Identifying individuals who are at an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture is an important challenge to be resolved. Recently, multivariable prediction tools have been developed to assist clinicians in the management of their patients by calculating their 10-year risk of fracture (FRAX, QFracture, Garvan) using a combination of known risk factors. These prediction models have revolutionized the way clinicians assess the risk of fracture. Studies evaluating the performance of prediction models in this and other areas of medicine have, however, been characterized by poor design, methodological conduct, and reporting. We examine recently developed fracture prediction models and critically discuss issues in their design, validation, and transparency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22688862What 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.