ArticleBone reports2020
What is the validity of self-reported fractures?
Article in Bone reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of self-reported fractures in a follow-up survey of the Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort study.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Lifestyle factors, including physical activity status, associated with fragility fractures and falls: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Increasing fracture incidence over 13 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the IORRA cohort.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025Observational
- Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Risk factors predicting the 'time to first fracture' and its association with imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Article
- The effect of fracture recency on observed 5-year fracture probability: A study based on the FRISBEE cohort.Bone reports · 2023Article
- Which parameters are more reliable in proximal humerus surgery in terms of the axillary nerve?Joint diseases and related surgery · 2023Article
- Fracture distribution in postmenopausal women: a FRISBEE sub-study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Article
- Fragility Fractures in Postmenopausal Women: Development of 5-Year Prediction Models Using the FRISBEE Study.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Article
- MOF/Hip Fracture Ratio in a Belgian Cohort of Post-menopausal Women (FRISBEE): Potential Impact on the FRAX® Score.Calcified tissue international · 2021Article
- Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub-Study of the FRISBEE Cohort.JBMR plus · 2021Article
- Risk factors for imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Article
- The association of objectively ascertained sibling fracture history with major osteoporotic fractures: a population-based cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Article
- Fragility fractures and prescriptions of medications for osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: results from the PMR Cohort Study.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2021Article
- Milk Consumption for the Prevention of Fragility Fractures.Nutrients · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We assessed the validity of self-reported fractures, over a median follow-up period of 6.2 years, in a well characterized population-based cohort of 3560 postmenopausal women, aged 60-85 years, from the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) study. Incident low-traumatic (falls from a standing height or less) or non-traumatic fractures, including peripheral fractures, were registered during each annual follow-up telephone interview. A self-reported fracture was considered as a true positive if it was validated by written reliable medical reports (radiographs, CT scans or surgical report). False positives fractures were considered to be those for which the radiology report indicated that there was no fracture at the reported site. Among self-reported fractures, false positive rates were 14.4% for all fractures. The rate of false positives of 11.2% (n = 48/429) was not negligible for the four classical major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs: hip, clinical spine, forearm or shoulder fractures). In terms of fracture site, we found the lowest false positive rate (4.4%) at the hip, and the highest (16.8%) at the spine, with the proximal humerus and the wrist in between, at about 10% each. The global rates of false positives were 12.5% (n = 22/176) for other major fractures and 22.3% (n = 49/220) for minor fractures. Younger subjects, individuals with fractures at sites other than the hip, with a lower education level, or with a higher BMI were more likely to report false positive fractures. Our data indicate that the inaccuracy of self-reported fractures is clinically relevant for several major fractures, which could influence any fracture risk prediction model.
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.