ArticleCMAJ open
Comparison of 2 fracture risk estimation processes in Alberta: a cross-sectional chart review.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Canada, decisions regarding osteoporosis pharmacotherapy are based on estimated 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We aimed to determine how frequently 2 common approaches (Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada [CAROC] tool and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) produced different estimates and to seek possible explanations for differences.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional chart review at a tertiary osteoporosis centre (Dr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre in Calgary). Included patients were women referred for consideration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy who attended a consultation between 2016 and 2019 and whose charts contained 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk estimates using both the CAROC tool (based on bone mineral density [BMD] results) and FRAX (based on BMD results and clinically assessed fracture risk factors). Risk estimates provided on BMD reports (calculated with CAROC) and generated through osteoporosis clinic consultation (calculated with FRAX, including BMD) were categorized as low (< 10.0%), moderate (10.0%-19.9%) or high (≥ 20.0%). Estimates were considered discordant when they placed the patient in different risk categories.
resultsOf 190 patients evaluated, 99 (52.1%) had discordant risk estimates. Although a similar proportion were considered high risk by BMD reports using the CAROC tool (17.9%) and clinic charts using FRAX (19.5%), the 2 methods identified different patients as being high risk. Around the crucial high-risk (20.0%) treatment threshold, discordance was present in 37 patients (19.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5%-25.7%); discordance around the moderate-risk (10.0%) threshold was present in 69 (36.3%, 95% CI 29.5%-43.2%) patients. Disagreement regarding fracture history between BMD reports and clinic charts was observed in 19.8% of patients.
interpretationFracture risk estimates on BMD reports (using the CAROC tool) and those calculated in the clinical setting (using FRAX) frequently result in different risk classification. Osteoporosis treatment decisions may differ in up to half of patients depending on which estimate is used, highlighting the need for a consistent and accurate assessment process for fracture risk.
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.