Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940052›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2018

Prediction of major osteoporotic and hip fractures in Australian men using FRAX scores adjusted with trabecular bone score.

K L Holloway, M Mohebbi, A G Betson, D Hans, N K Hyde, S L Brennan-Olsen, M A Kotowicz, J A Pasco

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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Associations between bone material strength index and FRAX scores.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Update on trabecular bone score.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

K L HollowayDeakin University, Geelong, Australia. khollo@barwonhealth.org.au.
M MohebbiDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
A G BetsonDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
D HansCenter of Bone Diseases, Bone & Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
N K HydeDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
S L Brennan-OlsenDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
M A KotowiczDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
J A PascoDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Deakin University · AUUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Melbourne · AUWestern Health · AU

Funding

Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship N/AArthritis Foundation of Australia N/AAustralian Postgraduate Award N/AGeelong Regional Medical Foundation N/ANational Health and Medical Research Council 1107510National Health and Medical Research Council 251638, 299831, 628582Perpetual Trustees N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There was no significant difference between the areas under receiver operating characteristics (AUROCs) and diagnostic indexes (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for either major osteoporotic or hip fracture FRAX scores when comparing the unadjusted and trabecular bone score (TBS)-adjusted scores.

introductionFRAX 10-year probability of fracture can be calculated with adjustment for the TBS. Studies have shown that TBS can improve FRAX assessments in some populations. This study aimed to determine if TBS-adjusted FRAX score is better than the unadjusted score for predicting major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture in Australian men.

methodsThis study involved 591 men aged 40-90 years, enrolled in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Incident MOF (n = 50) and hip fractures (n = 14) were ascertained using radiological reports. Median follow-up time was 9.5 years (IQR7.5-11.4). Diagnostic indexes were calculated using cut points of ≥20% for MOF and ≥3% for the hip. AUROC curves were also determined for adjusted and unadjusted scores as continuous variables.

resultsSensitivity was higher in the TBS-adjusted scores (MOF 4%, hip 78.6%) than the unadjusted scores (MOF 2%, hip 57.1%), with a decrease in specificity (MOF 98.9 vs 99.3%; hip 79.9 vs 83.9%). When considering TBS-adjusted and unadjusted FRAX as continuous scores, AUROCs were 0.738 and 0.740, respectively, for MOF and 0.849 and 0.848 for the hip.

conclusionsPrediction of fractures by MOF or hip FRAX was not substantially improved by TBS adjustment. There was no difference in AUROCs or diagnostic indexes for cut-off points of ≥20 for MOF and ≥3% for hip FRAX.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaBone DensityCancellous BoneHip FracturesHip JointHumansIncidenceLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporotic FracturesPredictive Value of TestsFRAX scoreHip fractureMajor osteoporotic fractureMenTrabecular bone score

Identifiers

PMID28940052
OpenAlexW2758483245

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.