ReviewArchives of osteoporosis2020
FRAX: re-adjust or re-think.
Review in Archives of osteoporosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application value of FRAX in high-altitude areas in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Updated practice guideline for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Guideline
- The predictive value of immune inflammation indexes for the risk of fracture in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Guidelines for fracture risk assessment and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men above the age of 50 in Qatar.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Guideline
- Discontinuation of bisphosphonates in seniors: a systematic review on health outcomes.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Pooled it
- The CKD-OSTEO Score: A Chronic Kidney Disease-specific Tool for Osteoporosis Risk Stratification.TouchREVIEWS in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Development and evaluation of a machine learning based risk prediction model for osteoporosis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Integration of Multi-Scale Predictive Tools of Bone Fragility: A Structural and Material Property Perspective.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Abdominal and hip fat percentages are associated with fragility fractures: evidence from a large cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Social vulnerability index enhances FRAX prediction of hip fractures in fall patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Hip axis length and non-hip cortical fragility fractures in young postmenopausal nonobese Caucasian women.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Handgrip and its relation to age, fragility fractures, and BMD between sexes in a population aged 50+ years.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2024Article
- Observational
- Article
- Prediction of subsequent fragility fractures: application of machine learning.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Focus on Non-osteoporotic Post-menopausal Women with Asymptomatic Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Monocentric Series.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2024Article
- Application of Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict Osteoporotic Fractures in Women.Korean journal of family medicine · 2024Article
- Performance of FRAX in older adults with frailty: the Framingham Heart Study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024Article
- Autoantibodies Serum Level and 10-Year Risk of Fractures Evaluated by FRAXOpen access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2024Article
- AI algorithms for accurate prediction of osteoporotic fractures in patients with diabetes: an up-to-date review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its development in 2008, FRAX has booked its place in the standard day to day management of osteoporosis. The FRAX tool has been appreciated for its simplicity and applicability for use in primary care, but criticised for the same reason, as it does not take into account exposure response. To address some of these limitations, relatively simple arithmetic procedures have been proposed to be applied to the conventional FRAX estimates of hip and major fracture probabilities aiming at adjustment of the probability assessment. However, as the list of these adjustments got longer, this has reflected on its implementation in the standard practice and gave FRAX a patchy look. Consequently, raises the need to re-think of the current FRAX and whether a second generation of the tool is required to address the perceived limitations of the original FRAX. This article will discuss both point of views of re-adjustment and re-thinking.
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.