ReviewTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease2015
Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment.
Review in Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fracture Risk Stratification by REMS: A 5 Years Prospective Longitudinal Multicentre Study.Calcified tissue international · 2026Observational
- Lifestyle factors, including physical activity status, associated with fragility fractures and falls: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Development of Simple Assessment tool for predict imminent risk of Fracture in Elderly women.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Fracture Toughness: Bridging the Gap Between Hip Fracture and Fracture Risk Assessment.Current osteoporosis reports · 2023Review
- Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.Aging and disease · 2022Review
- Body composition and osteoporotic fracture using anthropometric prediction equations to assess muscle and fat masses.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2021Article
- Review
- History of Previous Fracture and Imminent Fracture Risk in Swedish Women Aged 55 to 90 Years Presenting With a Fragility Fracture.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2020Observational
- Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Effects of the falls and fractures clinic as an integrated multidisciplinary model of care in Australia: a pre-post study.BMJ open · 2019Observational
- Predictors of fragility fracture and low bone mineral density in patients with a history of parental fracture.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2019Article
- 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
- Rationale of the Spanish FRAX model in decision-making for predicting osteoporotic fractures: an update of FRIDEX cohort of Spanish women.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
- The Tissue-Selective Estrogen Complex: A Review of Current Evidence.Rheumatology and therapy · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
More than half of older women who sustain a fragility fracture do not have osteoporosis by World Health Organization (WHO) bone mineral density (BMD) criteria; and, while BMD has been used to assess fracture risk for over 30 years, a range of other skeletal and nonskeletal clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fracture have been recognized. More than 30 assessment tools using CRFs have been developed, some predicting fracture risk and others low BMD alone. Recent systematic reviews have reported that many tools have not been validated against fracture incidence, and that the complexity of tools and the number of CRFs included do not ensure best performance with poor assessment of (internal or comparative) validity. Internationally, FRAX® is the most commonly recommended tool, in addition to QFracture in the UK, The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool in Canada and Garvan in Australia. All tools estimate standard 10-year risk of major osteoporotic and 10-year risk of hip fracture: FRAX® is able to estimate fracture risk either with or without BMD, but CAROC and Garvan both require BMD and QFracture does not. The best evidence for the utility of these tools is in case finding but there may be future prospects for the use of 10-year fracture risk as a common currency with reference to the benefits of treatment, whether pharmacological or lifestyle. The use of this metric is important in supporting health economic analyses. However, further calibration studies will be needed to prove that the tools are robust and that their estimates can be used in supporting treatment decisions, independent of BMD.
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.