Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33111193›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2020

Comparison of screening tools for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada.

William D Leslie, Lisa M Lix, Neil Binkley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Introducing FREMArchives of osteoporosis · 2025
    Article
  2. Should we consider ankle fractures as osteoporotic fractures?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Bone health in men: still suffer the gender gap.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Article
  6. Author response: bone health in men: still suffer the gender gap.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

William D LeslieDepartment of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 2A6, Canada. bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1056-1691
Lisa M LixDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Neil BinkleyUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
University of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The best screening strategy to identify treatment qualification based upon indicators of high fracture risk (low-trauma fractures of the hip, spine, or multiple fracture episodes at other sites; high fracture probability with the Canadian fracture risk assessment [FRAX®] tool major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] computed with bone mineral density [BMD] > 20%; or vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment [VFA]) was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%. PURPOSE: To inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada, we compared multiple screening tools using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

methodsThe study populations consisted of (a) 28,906 individuals > 50 years or older, and (b) 15,429 women age > 65 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment (2010-2018). We considered two treatment qualifications: Treatment Approach 1: prior high-risk fracture, high fracture probability (FRAX-MOF with BMD > 20%), or vertebral fracture on VFA; Treatment Approach 2: Approach 1 or an osteoporotic BMD T score. Candidate screening tools were FRAX-MOF without BMD, age alone, weight alone, SCORE, ORAI, SOFSURF, OSIRIS, ABONE, and OST. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of incident fracture diagnoses.

resultsAmong all individuals, FRAX-MOF without BMD demonstrated the best ability to identify those satisfying Treatment Approach 1 (area under the curve [AUC 0.863]) and was significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.001). For identification of individuals satisfying Treatment Approach 2, FRAX-MOF without BMD showed moderate stratification (AUC 0.735), slightly lower than OSIRIS (AUC 0.752, P < 0.05), similar to SCORE (AUC 0.739, P > 0.05) and significantly better than all other screening tools (P < 0.05). For prediction of incident MOF, FRAX-MOF without BMD achieved the highest performance (AUC 0.652), and was significantly better than all other screening tools except OSIRIS. AUCs among women age > 65 years tended to be greater with a similar ranking, and no tool outperformed FRAX-MOF without BMD. Based upon a summary score, the highest ranked strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of 10%.

conclusionsAll screening tools show some ability to identify individuals qualifying for treatment and stratify risk for incident fracture. For treatment based upon indicators of high fracture risk, the best performing strategy was FRAX-MOF without BMD using a cutoff of ≥ 10%.

Indexed as

Osteoporotic FracturesAbsorptiometry, PhotonBone DensityCanadaFemaleHumansManitobaRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsClinical practice guidelinesDual-energy x-ray absorptiometryFracturesFRAXOsteoporosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID33111193
OpenAlexW3096706146

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.