ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2016
Relationship between the FRAX
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2016. 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.
- Fracture probability is predictive of fall-associated hospitalization: the Manitoba BMD Registry.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026Article
- Study epidemiology of risk fracture in osteoporosis based on frax score, and osta score, with risk of fall using Ontario score in elderly Indonesia.Journal of public health research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFalls is a risk factor for fracture. The FRAX
methodsThe cross-sectional study set from 2009 to 2010 included 1200 community-dwelling people who were systematically sampled in central Taiwan. The 1200 participants (men: 524; women: 676; ≥40 years old) completed questionnaires about socioeconomic status; lifestyle; medical and fall history were completed. FRAX scores with and without bone mineral density (BMD) were calculated by using the Taiwan calculator.
resultsA total of 19.8% participants fell down. Binary regression models showed that diabetes mellitus history (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.03-2.52), the FRAX without BMD in a continuous major score (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.09), continuous hip score (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.16), categorical major score ≥ 10% (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.25-2.61), and categorical hip score ≥ 3% (OR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.30-2.50) were independent risk factors for falls. FRAX with BMD in a continuous major score (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.06), continuous hip score (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.09), categorical major score ≥ 10% (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.09-2.12), and categorical hip score ≥ 3% (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.13-2.09) were also independent risk factors.
conclusionsWe concluded that FRAX
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.