ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2015
Usefulness of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool Using Lumbar Bone Mineral Density in Prediction of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discriminatory Accuracy of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in Asian Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of bone metabolism · 2024Article
- Correlations of Serum Hormones and Bone Mineral Density with Fracture and Balance Ability of Postmenopausal Patients and Effects of Calcitriol.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the value of lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) in fracture risk assessment (FRAX) tool.
methodsOne hundred and ten patients aged over 60 years were enrolled and divided into 2 groups as non-osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and OVF groups. The 10-year-risk of major osteoporotic vertebral fracture of each group was calculated by FRAX tool with femoral and lumbar spine BMDs to compare the usefulness of lumbar spine BMD in prediction of OVF. The blood level of osteocalcin and C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) as markers of activities of osteoblast and osteoclast, respectively were analyzed using the institutional database.
resultsIn the OVF group, the ratio of patients with previous fracture history or use of glucocorticoid was higher than those in non-OVF group (p=0.000 and 0.030, respectively). The levels of T-score of femur neck and lumbar spine in OVF group were significantly lower than those in non-OVF group (p=0.001 and 0.000, respectively). The risk of OVF in FRAX using femur BMD in non-OVF and OVF groups was 6.7±6.13 and 11.4±10.06, respectively (p=0.007). The risk of using lumbar BMD in the 2 groups was 6.9±8.91 and 15.1±15.08, respectively (p=0.002). The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve in the FRAX risk with lumbar and femur neck BMD were 0.726 and 0.684, respectively. The comparison of osteocalcin and CTX was not significant (p=0.162 and 0.369, respectively).
conclusionIn our study, the 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture in the OVF group of our study was lower than the recommended threshold of intervention for osteoporosis. Hence, a lower threshold for the treatment of osteoporosis may be set for the Korean population to prevent OVF. In the prediction of symptomatic OVF, FRAX tool using lumbar spine BMD may be more useful than that using femur neck 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.