Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31960099›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2020

Screening for high hip fracture risk does not impact on falls risk: a post hoc analysis from the SCOOP study.

C I Condurache, S Chiu, P Chotiyarnwong, H Johansson, L Shepstone, E Lenaghan, C Cooper, S Clarke, R F S Khioe, R Fordham and 15 more

Open access · greenAbstract 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

25 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

C I ConduracheCentre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Aging, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
S ChiuCentre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Aging, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
P ChotiyarnwongDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, The Mellanby Centre For Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
H JohanssonCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
L ShepstoneNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
E LenaghanNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
C CooperMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
S ClarkeDepartment of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R F S KhioeNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
R FordhamNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
N GittoesCentre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
I HarveyNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
N C HarveyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
A HeawoodBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R HollandLeicester Medical School, Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
A HoweNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
J A KanisCentre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
T MarshallNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
T W O'NeillNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
T J PetersBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
N M RedmondBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
D TorgersonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
D TurnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
E McCloskeyCentre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Aging, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. e.v.mccloskey@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0177-8140
SCOOP Study Team
University of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSiriraj Hospital · THUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Medical 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/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A reduction in hip fracture incidence following population screening might reflect the effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis therapy, behaviour change to reduce falls, or both. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that identifying high hip fracture risk by FRAX was not associated with any alteration in falls risk.

introductionTo investigate whether effectiveness of an osteoporosis screening programme to reduce hip fractures was mediated by modification of falls risk in the screening arm.

methodsThe SCOOP study recruited 12,483 women aged 70-85 years, individually randomised to a control (n = 6250) or screening (n = 6233) arm; in the latter, osteoporosis treatment was recommended to women at high risk of hip fracture, while the control arm received usual care. Falls were captured by self-reported questionnaire. We determined the influence of baseline risk factors on future falls, and then examined for differences in falls risk between the randomisation groups, particularly in those at high fracture risk.

resultsWomen sustaining one or more falls were slightly older at baseline than those remaining falls free during follow-up (mean difference 0.70 years, 95%CI 0.55-0.85, p < 0.001). A higher FRAX 10-year probability of hip fracture was associated with increased likelihood of falling, with fall risk increasing by 1-2% for every 1% increase in hip fracture probability. However, falls risk factors were well balanced between the study arms and, importantly, there was no evidence of a difference in falls occurrence. In particular, there was no evidence of interaction (p = 0.18) between baseline FRAX hip fracture probabilities and falls risk in the two arms, consistent with no impact of screening on falls in women informed to be at high risk of hip fracture.

conclusionEffectiveness of screening for high FRAX hip fracture probability to reduce hip fracture risk was not mediated by a reduction in falls.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsFallsFracturesFRAXOlder womenOsteoporosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID31960099
OpenAlexW3000212279

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.