Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35820750›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Comparison of fracture risk calculators in elderly fallers: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.

Georgi Todorov, Susan Brook, Nicole Quah Qin Xian, Sophia Von Widekind, Bernard Freudenthal, Alexander N Comninos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Georgi TodorovDepartment of Medicine for the Elderly, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, UK.
Susan BrookDepartment of Medicine for the Elderly, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6506-9365
Nicole Quah Qin XianDepartment of Acute Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sophia Von WidekindDepartment of Acute Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Bernard FreudenthalEndocrine Bone Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4669-918X
Alexander N ComninosEndocrine Bone Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK a.comninos@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7104-2297
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBWest Middlesex University Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R000484/1Medical Research Council MR/T006242/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElderly patients presenting with falls are known to carry an extremely high risk of future fragility fractures. Current osteoporosis guidelines recommend using fracture risk calculators such as FRAX, QFracture or Garvan to guide management. However, they differ considerably in their inputs and may therefore provide contrasting risk estimations in certain individuals. In this study, we compare these risk calculators in a high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital with falls.

designHospital-based cross-sectional study.

settingSecondary care, London, UK.

participantsData from 120 consecutive elderly patients who had falls presenting to a single hospital over 4 months were collected. 10-year major and hip fracture risks were calculated using FRAX, QFracture and Garvan. 1-year major and hip fracture risks from QFracture were assessed against prospective incidence of fracture.

resultsMedian 10-year major fracture risk was: FRAX 19.5%, QFracture 26.0%, Garvan 32.5%. Median 10-year hip fracture risk was: FRAX 9.6%, QFracture 21.1%, Garvan 6.5%. Correlation between FRAX and QFracture was r=0.672 for major, r=0.676 for hip fracture (both p<0.0001); FRAX and Garvan r=0.778 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.128 (p=0.206) for hip fracture; QFracture and Garvan r=0.658 (p<0.0001) for major, r=0.318 (p<0.001) for hip fracture. QFracture 1-year predicted major and hip fracture rates were 1.8% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with actual rates of 2.1% and 0%, respectively.

conclusionsAlthough strong correlations between calculators were observed in the study cohort, there were differences of up to 13% between estimated risks. QFracture captured several elderly-specific inputs not considered by other calculators and so projected higher fracture risk than the other calculators. QFracture provided 1-year fracture risks that were comparable with the prospective observed fracture incidence in the cohort. This study has important clinical implications for the use of fracture risk calculators to guide treatment decisions, particularly in the high-risk cohort of elderly patients admitted to hospital following falls.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporotic FracturesAgedBone DensityCross-Sectional StudiesHospitalsHumansProspective StudiesRisk Factorsbone diseasescalcium & bonegeriatric medicinepreventive medicine

Identifiers

PMID35820750
PMCPMC9274535
OpenAlexW4285098773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.