Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077380›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2015

FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds--an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK.

E McCloskey, J A Kanis, H Johansson, N Harvey, A Odén, A Cooper, C Cooper, R M Francis, D M Reid, D Marsh and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Examining treatment targets and equity in bone-active medication use within secondary fracture prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Revised Swedish FRAX models and the establishment of age-dependent intervention thresholds.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. A surrogate FRAX model for Mongolia.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025
    Article
  12. Cost-effectiveness intervention thresholds for romosozumab and teriparatide in the treatment of osteoporosis in the UK.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Osteoporosis in 2022: Care gaps to screening and personalised medicine.Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

E McCloskeyAcademic Unit of Bone Metabolism and Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK.
J A Kanis
H Johansson
N Harvey
A Odén
A Cooper
C Cooper
R M Francis
D M Reid
D Marsh
P Selby
F Thompson
S Hewitt
J Compston
Royal Osteoporosis Society · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBManchester Royal Infirmary · GBMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit · GBNewcastle University · GBNorthern General Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U147585827Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Medical Research Council MR/K006312/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledUnder current guidelines, based on prior fracture probability thresholds, inequalities in access to therapy arise especially at older ages (≥70 years) depending on the presence or absence of a prior fracture. An alternative threshold (a fixed threshold from the age of 70 years) reduces this disparity, increases treatment access and decreases the need for bone densitometry.

introductionSeveral international guidelines set age-specific intervention thresholds at the 10-year probability of fracture equivalent to a woman of average BMI with a prior fracture. At older ages (≥70 years), women with prior fracture selected for treatment are at lower average absolute risk than those selected for treatment in the absence of prior fracture, prompting consideration of alternative thresholds in this age group.

methodsUsing a simulated population of 50,633 women aged 50-90 years in the UK, with a distribution of risk factors similar to that in the European FRAX derivation cohorts and a UK-matched age distribution, the current NOGG intervention and assessment thresholds were compared to one where the thresholds remained constant from 70 years upwards.

resultsUnder current thresholds, 45.1% of women aged ≥70 years would be eligible for therapy, comprising 37.5% with prior fracture, 2.2% with high risk but no prior fracture and 5.4% selected for treatment after bone mineral density (BMD) measurement. Mean hip fracture probability was 11.3, 23.3 and 17.6%, respectively, in these groups. Under the alternative thresholds, the overall proportion of women treated increased from 45.1 to 52.9%, with 8.4% at high risk but no prior fracture and 7.0% selected for treatment after BMD measurement. In the latter group, the mean probability of hip fracture was identical to that observed in women with prior fracture (11.3%). The alternative threshold also reduced the need for BMD measurement, particularly at older ages (>80 years).

conclusionsThe alternative thresholds equilibrate fracture risk, particularly hip fracture risk, in those with or without prior fracture selected for treatment and reduce BMD usage at older ages.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionAge FactorsBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleHip FracturesHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesPatient SelectionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID26077380
OpenAlexW616190519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.