ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Comparison of four tools to identify painful new osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the postmenopausal population in Beijing.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for Osteoporosis and Vertebral Fracture Primary Screening in Elderly Men.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Discriminatory Accuracy of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in Asian Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of bone metabolism · 2024Article
- Fracture risk prediction in old Chinese people-a narrative review.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Review
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
Objectives: To validate and compare four tools, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD), Beijing Friendship Hospital Osteoporosis Screening Tool (BFH-OST), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), and BMD, to identify painful new osteoporotic vertebral fractures (PNOVFs). Methods: A total of 2874 postmenopausal women treated from June 2013 to June 2022 were enrolled and divided into two groups: patients with PNOVFs who underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty (PNOVFs group, n = 644) and community-enrolled females (control group, n = 2230). Magnetic resonance and X-ray imaging were used to confirm the presence of PNOVFs. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was performed to calculate the BMD T-scores. Osteoporosis was diagnosed according to WHO Health Organization criteria. Data on the clinical and demographic risk factors were self-reported using a questionnaire. The ability to identify PNOVFs using FRAX, BFH-OST, OSTA, and BMD scores was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. For this evaluation, we calculated the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cut-off points. Results: There were significant differences in FRAX (without BMD), BFH-OST, OSTA, and BMD T-scores (total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine) between the PNOVFs and control groups. Compared with BFH-OST, OSTA, and BMD, the FRAX score had the best identifying value for PNOVFs; the AUC of the FRAX score (optimal cutoff =3.6%) was 0.825, while the sensitivity and specificity were 82.92% and 67.09%, respectively. Conclusion: FRAX may be the preferable tool for identifying PNOVFs in postmenopausal women, while BFH-OST and OSTA can be applied as more simple screening tools for PNOVFs.
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.