ArticleClinical rheumatology2015
FRAX fracture risk in women with a recent fracture of the distal forearm: agreement between assessments with and without bone mineral density and impact of measurement side in the individual patient.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A combination of clinical balance measures and FRAX® to improve identification of high-risk fallers.BMC geriatrics · 2016Trial
- Stability of clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis patients with stable disease defined on the basis of the EULAR response criteria.Clinical rheumatology · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) has been developed by the World Health Organization to evaluate the 10-year risk of a hip fracture and a major osteoporotic fracture. We examined the agreement between fracture risk calculated with and without femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in individual patients and the impact of BMD measurement side. Bilateral femoral neck BMD results obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and clinical risk factor data from 140 women (age 66 ± 8 years) with a recent distal forearm fracture were used for FRAX analyses. Discrepancies between pairs of risk assessments were analysed by the Bland-Altman method. Agreement on the individual level was expressed as 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and on the group level as the mean (or median) of intra-individual differences (the bias). The femoral neck T-score was -1.69 ± 0.87 (hip with lowest BMD value). The risk of a major fracture and a hip fracture based on the lowest femoral neck BMD value was 23.8 ± 21.4% and 7.6 ± 8.3%, respectively. For major fracture risk assessed without versus with the lowest BMD value, lower and upper LoA were -12.3 and 21.1 percentage points (pp) (bias 4.4 pp, p < 0.0001). The corresponding LoA for hip fracture risk were -11.6 and18.6 pp (bias 3.5 pp, p < 0.0001). LoA for major fracture risk assessed with the lowest versus the highest BMD value were 0.0 and 9.5 pp (bias 2.0, p < 0.0001), and correspondingly for hip fracture risk 0.0 and 9.5 pp (bias 1.0 pp, p < 0.0001). Intra-individual differences increased with increasing fracture risk. In conclusion, the 10-year fracture risk calculated without BMD was on the average slightly overestimated compared to calculations with BMD. On the individual patient level differences between fracture risk assessments with and without BMD were pronounced. The side of BMD measurement may also significantly influence the risk assessment result in individual patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24820144What 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.