Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27465509›Full record

SynthesisArchives of osteoporosis2016

A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

John A Kanis, Nicholas C Harvey, Cyrus Cooper, Helena Johansson, Anders Odén, Eugene V McCloskey, Advisory Board of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of osteoporosis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 222 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
222citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

222 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures: a meta-analysis to update FRAX.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk: a meta-analysis to update FRAX.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of related fractures in developed economies in the Asia Pacific region: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Update of the fracture risk prediction tool FRAX: a systematic review of potential cohorts and analysis plan.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. 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
  16. Pooled it
  17. Menopausal hormone therapy reduces the risk of fracture regardless of falls risk or baseline FRAX probability-results from the Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Systematic screening using FRAXOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Trial
  20. Article

162 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

John A KanisCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. w.j.pontefract@sheffield.ac.uk.
Nicholas C HarveyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Cyrus CooperMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helena JohanssonCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
Anders OdénCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
Eugene V McCloskeyCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
Advisory Board of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group

Funding

Department of Health 10/33/04Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical 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

unlabelledThis systematic review identified assessment guidelines for osteoporosis that incorporate FRAX. The rationale for intervention thresholds is given in a minority of papers. Intervention thresholds (fixed or age-dependent) need to be country-specific.

introductionIn most assessment guidelines, treatment for osteoporosis is recommended in individuals with prior fragility fractures, especially fractures at spine and hip. However, for those without prior fractures, the intervention thresholds can be derived using different methods. The aim of this report was to undertake a systematic review of the available information on the use of FRAX® in assessment guidelines, in particular the setting of thresholds and their validation.

methodsWe identified 120 guidelines or academic papers that incorporated FRAX of which 38 provided no clear statement on how the fracture probabilities derived are to be used in decision-making in clinical practice. The remainder recommended a fixed intervention threshold (n = 58), most commonly as a component of more complex guidance (e.g. bone mineral density (BMD) thresholds) or an age-dependent threshold (n = 22). Two guidelines have adopted both age-dependent and fixed thresholds.

resultsFixed probability thresholds have ranged from 4 to 20 % for a major fracture and 1.3-5 % for hip fracture. More than one half (39) of the 58 publications identified utilised a threshold probability of 20 % for a major osteoporotic fracture, many of which also mention a hip fracture probability of 3 % as an alternative intervention threshold. In nearly all instances, no rationale is provided other than that this was the threshold used by the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. Where undertaken, fixed probability thresholds have been determined from tests of discrimination (Hong Kong), health economic assessment (USA, Switzerland), to match the prevalence of osteoporosis (China) or to align with pre-existing guidelines or reimbursement criteria (Japan, Poland). Age-dependent intervention thresholds, first developed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), are based on the rationale that if a woman with a prior fragility fracture is eligible for treatment, then, at any given age, a man or woman with the same fracture probability but in the absence of a previous fracture (i.e. at the 'fracture threshold') should also be eligible. Under current NOGG guidelines, based on age-dependent 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 using a hybrid model reduces this disparity.

conclusionThe use of FRAX (fixed or age-dependent thresholds) as the gateway to assessment identifies individuals at high risk more effectively than the use of BMD. However, the setting of intervention thresholds needs to be country-specific.

Indexed as

Early Medical InterventionOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesRisk AssessmentAgedBone DensityEligibility DeterminationFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicAssessment guidelinesCalibrationDiscriminationFRAXIntervention threshold

Identifiers

PMID27465509
PMCPMC4978487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.