Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28716500›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Overview of Fracture Prediction Tools.

John A Kanis, Nicholas C Harvey, Helena Johansson, Anders Odén, Eugene V McCloskey, William D Leslie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ensemble-learning approach improves fracture prediction using genomic and phenotypic data.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Risk of fracture in users of hormonal contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Performance of FRAX in older adults with frailty: the Framingham Heart Study.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
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    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

6 authors.

John A KanisCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Institute of Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: w.j.pontefract@shef.ac.uk.
Nicholas C HarveyCentre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Helena JohanssonCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK; Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anders OdénCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
Eugene V McCloskeyCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
William D LeslieDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 17702Arthritis Research UK 21231Department of Health HTA/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_12011/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterization of risk factors for fracture that contribute significantly to fracture risk, over and above that provided by the bone mineral density, has stimulated the development of risk assessment tools. The more adequately evaluated tools, all available online, include the FRAX® tool, the Garvan fracture risk calculator and, in the United Kingdom only, QFracture®. Differences in the input variables, output, and model construct give rise to marked differences in the computed risks from each calculator. Reasons for the differences include the derivation of fracture probability (FRAX) rather than incidence (Garvan and QFracture), limited calibration (Garvan), and inappropriate source information (QFracture). These differences need to be taken into account in the evaluation of assessment guidelines.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAccidental FallsBone DensityFractures, BoneHumansOsteoporosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCalibrationfracture riskFRAXGarvan fracture risk calculatorQFracture

Identifiers

PMID28716500
PMCPMC5663341

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.