ArticleBMJ open2013
Assessing fracture risk in people with MS: a service development study comparing three fracture risk scoring systems.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of fracture risk calculators in elderly fallers: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Are we responding effectively to bone mineral density loss and fracture risks in people with epilepsy?Epilepsia open · 2020Article
- 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
- Risk Factors, Epidemiology and Treatment Strategies for Metabolic Bone Disease in Patients with Neurological Disease.Current osteoporosis reports · 2016Review
- Novel assessment tools for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment.Current osteoporosis reports · 2014Review
- A service development study of the assessment and management of fracture risk in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neurology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSuboptimal bone health is increasingly recognised as an important cause of morbidity. Multiple sclerosis (MS) has been consistently associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fracture. Various fracture risk screening tools have been developed, two of which are in routine use and a further one is MS-specific. We set out to compare the results obtained by these in the MS clinic population.
designThis was a service development study. The 10-year risk estimates of any fracture and hip fracture generated by each of the algorithms were compared.
settingThe MS clinic at the Royal London Hospital.
participants88 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of MS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean 10-year overall fracture risk and hip fracture risk were calculated using each of the three fracture risk calculators. The number of interventions that would be required as a result of using each of these tools was also compared.
resultsMean 10-year fracture risk was 4.7%, 2.3% and 7.6% using FRAX, QFracture and the MS-specific calculator, respectively (p<0.0001 for difference). The agreement between risk scoring tools was poor at all levels of fracture risk.
conclusionsThe agreement between these three fracture risk scoring tools is poor in the MS population. Further work is required to develop and validate an accurate fracture risk scoring system for use in MS.
trial registrationThis service development study was approved by the Clinical Effectiveness Department at Barts Health NHS Trust (project registration number 156/12).
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.