Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35566539›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Predictive Performance of the FRAX Tool Calibrated for Spain vs. an Age and Sex Model: Prospective Cohort Study with 9082 Women and Men Followed for up to 8 Years.

Aníbal García-Sempere, Isabel Hurtado, Salvador Peiró, Francisco Sánchez-Sáez, Yared Santaana, Clara Rodríguez-Bernal, Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno, José Sanfélix-Genovés

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Aníbal García-SempereFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.
Isabel HurtadoFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.
Salvador PeiróFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3902-569X
Francisco Sánchez-SáezFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3011-9884
Yared SantaanaFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.
Clara Rodríguez-BernalFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2617-8635
Gabriel Sanfélix-GimenoFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.
José Sanfélix-GenovésFoundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region (FISABIO), 46020 Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Spain, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) was adapted using studies with a small number of patients, and there are only a few external validation studies that present limitations. In this prospective cohort study, we compared the performance of FRAX and a simple age and sex model. We used data from the ESOSVAL cohort, a cohort composed of a Mediterranean population of 11,035 women and men aged 50 years and over, followed for up to 8 years, to compare the discrimination, calibration, and reclassification of FRAX calibrated for Spain and a logistic model including only age and sex as variables. We found virtually identical AUC, 83.55% for FRAX (CI 95%: 80.46, 86.63) and 84.10% for the age and sex model (CI 95%: 80.91, 87.29), and there were similar observed-to-predicted ratios. In the reclassification analyses, patients with a hip fracture that were reclassified correctly as high risk by FRAX, compared to the age and sex model, were -2.86%, using either the 3% threshold or the observed incidence, 1.54% (95%CI: -8.44, 2.72 for the 3% threshold; 95%CI: -7.68, 1.97 for the incidence threshold). Remarkably simple and inexpensive tools that are easily transferable into electronic medical record environments may offer a comparable predictive ability to that of FRAX.

Indexed as

calibrationclinical decision-makingepidemiological methodsFRAXreal-world datavalidation

Identifiers

PMID35566539
PMCPMC9101808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.