Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33710360›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2021

[Risk assessment in osteoporosis : Time-tested and new approaches].

Friederike Thomasius, Björn Bühring

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Friederike ThomasiusFrankfurter Hormon- & Osteoporosezentrum, Goethestr. 23, 60313, Frankfurt, Deutschland. thomasius@hormon-osteoporosezentrum.de.
Björn BühringRheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fracture risk cannot be determined by bone density alone. It is important to identify and consider risk factors that individually increase the risk of fractures when they occur. Risk calculators have been developed worldwide to determine fracture risk. The risk factors currently listed in the Dachverbands Osteologie (DVO) S3 Guidelines for the "Diagnosis and Therapy of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis and Male Osteoporosis" are diverse and should be prioritized, since not every fracture risk factor present increases the risk of a vertebral or femoral neck fracture to the same extent. Due to the unknown interaction between risk factors, no more than two risk factors in addition to age, gender, and bone density measurement should be considered per patient. For risk assessment, it is important that the two thresholds defined by the German guideline are reached, above which diagnostic workup or specific therapy for fracture risk reduction should be recommended. These thresholds are currently defined as 20% for diagnostics and 30% for therapy, based on the absolute 10-year risk for vertebral and femoral neck fractures. The threshold for diagnostics is reached with the presence of a risk factor mentioned in the guideline. To reach the threshold for therapy, the bone density measurement result is required to reach the age-specific T‑score. However, typical fragile fractures of the vertebral bodies or femur increase the fracture risk so substantially that therapy can be recommended even without a bone density result.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalBone DensityFemaleHumansMaleRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBone densityFractures, boneRisk factorsThreshold/diagnosticsThreshold/treatment

Identifiers

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.