ArticleJournal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry
Simplified criteria for selecting patients for vertebral fracture assessment.
Article in Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osteoporosis in children and adolescents with transfusion-dependent thalassemia and the diagnostic value of different indicators.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Comparison of the NOF and NOGG guidelines for spinal radiographic examination in postmenopausal Chinese women.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Article
- Vertebral Fracture Identification as Part of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment in Patients with Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 2013 Position Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has adopted simplified indications for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) based on an analysis of the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). This showed that a simpler regression model, which included only age, bone mineral density (BMD), and height loss, was able to differentiate women with vertebral fractures from those without vertebral fractures almost as well as more complex models. We aimed to verify these findings in 1228 women referred for BMD testing and determine if the 2013 ISCD indications for VFA would perform as well the 2007 indications. The simple and complex SOF-based models were similar in terms of sensitivity (88.4% vs 89.4%), specificity (44.4% vs 45.5%), positive (25.9% vs 26.5%) and negative (94.5% vs 95.1%) predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) (0.664 vs 0.674). The 2013 and 2007 ISCD VFA indications did not differ significantly in terms of sensitivity (88.2% vs 91.3%), specificity (41.3% vs 37.5%), positive (25.3% vs 22.9%) and negative (93.9% vs 95.5%) predictive values, and AUROC (0.648 vs 0.644). Our study provides support for the use of the simplified 2013 ISCD VFA indications as a practical approach to VFA testing.
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.