ArticleAnnals of family medicine2016
Comparison of the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) With FRAX in Identifying Men at Risk for Osteoporosis.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Osteoporosis in men-East and West: Can the twain meet? A perspective from Asia.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2024Review
- The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools.Clinical diabetes and endocrinology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe wanted to compare the male osteoporosis risk estimation score (MORES) with the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in screening men for osteoporosis.
methodsThis study reports analysis of data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), a nationally representative sample of the US population, comparing the operating characteristics of FRAX and MORES to identify men at risk for osteoporosis using a subset of 1,498 men, aged 50 years and older, with a valid dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan. DXA-derived bone mineral density using a T score of -2.5 or lower at either the femoral neck or total hip defined the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Outcomes included the operating characteristics, area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve, and agreement of the FRAX and MORES.
resultsSixty-seven (4.5%) of the 1,498 men had osteoporosis of the hip. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for the MORES were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.63), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the FRAX were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.27-0.51), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88-0.91), and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84) respectively. Agreement was poor.
conclusionsCompared with the MORES, the FRAX underperformed as a screening strategy for osteoporosis using the threshold score suggested by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). An integrated approach that uses the MORES to determine which men should have a DXA scan and the FRAX to guide treatment decisions, based on the risk of a future fracture, identified 82% of men who were candidates for treatments based on National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines.
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.