Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32185435›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

Repurposing a fracture risk calculator (FRAX) as a screening tool for women at risk for sarcopenia.

J A Pasco, M Mohebbi, M C Tembo, K L Holloway-Kew, N K Hyde, L J Williams, M A Kotowicz

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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J A PascoInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. juliep@barwonhealth.org.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8968-4714
M MohebbiBiostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9713-7211
M C TemboInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1210-2437
K L Holloway-KewInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-2990
N K HydeInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0693-2904
L J WilliamsInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1377-1272
M A KotowiczInstitute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (iMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8094-1411
Deakin University · AUBarwon Health · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 251638National Health and Medical Research Council 628582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis and sarcopenia share risk profiles, so we tested a fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) as a screening tool for sarcopenia. FRAX probabilities without bone mineral density predicted sarcopenia with high sensitivity and reasonable specificity. There is potential to use this FRAX as a screening tool for sarcopenia. PURPOSE: There is a need for simple screening tools for sarcopenia. As osteoporosis and sarcopenia share risk profiles, we tested the performance of a fracture risk assessment tool for discriminating individuals at risk for sarcopenia.

methodsIn this longitudinal study, FRAX (Australia) probabilities were calculated for 354 women (ages 40-90 years) in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Sarcopenia was assessed a decade later using DXA-derived low appendicular lean mass (Lunar; ALM/height

resultsBaseline median (IQR) values for HF-FRAX without BMD were 0.4 (0.1-1.3) and for MOF-FRAX without BMD, 2.4 (1.2-5.2); comparable figures for HF-FRAX with BMD were 0.2 (0.0-0.7) and for MOF-FRAX with BMD, 2.1 (1.1-4.4). At follow-up, sarcopenia was identified for 11 (3.1%) women. When FRAX was calculated without BMD, the AUROC was 0.90 for HF-FRAX and 0.88 for MOF-FRAX. Optimal thresholds were 0.9 for HF-FRAX (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 62.4%) and 5.3 for MOF-FRAX (sensitivity 81.8%, specificity 71.7%). Calculating FRAX with BMD did not improve the predictive performance of FRAX for sarcopenia.

conclusionHere we provide preliminary evidence to suggest that FRAX probabilities without BMD might predict sarcopenia with high sensitivity and reasonable specificity. Given that FRAX clinical risk factors are identified without equipment, there is potential to use this or a modified version of the FRAX tool to screen for individuals at risk of sarcopenia.

Indexed as

Osteoporotic FracturesSarcopeniaAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaBone DensityFemaleHand StrengthHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsLean massMuscle strengthOlder womenSarcopeniaScreening tool

Identifiers

PMID32185435
OpenAlexW3010926110

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.