Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25957065›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2015

Estimating osteoporotic fracture risk following a wrist fracture: a tale of two systems.

Karen Beattie, Jonathan Adachi, George Ioannidis, Alexandra Papaioannou, William D Leslie, Ruby Grewal, Joy MacDermid, Anthony B Hodsman

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Direct comparison of FRAX(R) and a simplified fracture risk assessment tool in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Karen BeattieDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Ave. East, Hamilton, ON, L9N 1Y2, Canada, karen.beattie@camris.ca.
Jonathan Adachi
George Ioannidis
Alexandra Papaioannou
William D Leslie
Ruby Grewal
Joy MacDermid
Anthony B Hodsman
McMaster University · CAWestern University · CASt. Peter's Hospital · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX) and Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tools can both be used to determine an individual's 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, these tools differ in their risk calculation. For participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower fracture risk estimate than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of the current report is to compare fracture risk prediction rates using the CAROC and the FRAX® tools.

methodsIndividuals ≥50 years with a distal radius fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less were recruited from a single orthopedic clinic. Participants underwent a DXA scan of their lumbar spine and hip. Femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk factors were used to determine each participant's 10-year fracture risk using both fracture risk assessment tools. Participants were categorized as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %), or high (>20 %) risk. Stratified by age (<65 years, >65 years), the proportion of participants in each category was compared between the tools.

resultsAnalyses included 60 participants (mean age 65.7 ± 9.6 years). In those <65 years (n = 26), the proportion of individuals at low, moderate, and high risk differed between the FRAX and CAROC tools (p < 0.0001). FRAX categorized 69 % as low (CAROC 0 %) and 3 % as high (CAROC 12 %) risk. For individuals >65 years, almost all were at least at moderate risk (FRAX 79 %, CAROC 53 %), but fewer were at high risk using FRAX (18 vs. 47 %, p < 0.0003).

conclusionFor participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower estimate of 10-year fracture risk than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy. However, almost all participants >65 years were at moderate or high risk under both FRAX and CAROC and should at least be considered for pharmacotherapy.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPrognosisRadius FracturesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsWrist Injuries

Identifiers

PMID25957065
PMCPMC4555341
OpenAlexW841532312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.