ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Comparison of Trabecular Bone Score-Adjusted Fracture Risk Assessment (TBS-FRAX) and FRAX Tools for Identification of High Fracture Risk among Taiwanese Adults Aged 50 to 90 Years with or without Prediabetes and Diabetes.
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obesity and bone health: reconciling the density-fragility paradox.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Bone microstructure and TBS in diabetes: what have we learned? A narrative review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Review
- Prevalent vertebral fractures and the diabetic bone paradox in women who sustain a hip fracture: a cross-sectional study.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Primary Hyperparathyroidism: An Analysis Amid the Co-Occurrence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Research progress of diabetic osteoporosis: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- The use of the FRAX® tool and its adjustments in women living with diabetes: a cohort study in primary care in Brazil.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Article
- Discriminatory Accuracy of Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in Asian Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of bone metabolism · 2024Article
- Femoral bone mineral density at the time of hip fracture is higher in women with versus without type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The burden of osteoporosis is projected to increase. Identification and prompt intervention for osteoporotic fractures are important. Adjusting the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX®) tool with trabecular bone score (TBS) could improve risk prediction. However, little is known about whether TBS-adjusted FRAX® would change the proportion of individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the proportions of Taiwanese adults who qualified for intervention, according to the FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX®, with stratification by sex, age group, and glucose regulation status. Materials and Methods: A medical record review on adults 50−90 years who had undergone a general health examination in a regional hospital in Taiwan was conducted. FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX® were calculated. FRAX® cut-points of ≥ 20% for major osteoporotic fracture and ≥3% for hip fracture were adopted to identify individuals qualified for osteoporosis intervention. Individuals were classified as prediabetes and diabetes if their HbA1c was 5.7−6.4% and >6.4%, respectively. Results: A total of 8098 individuals with a mean age of 61.0 years were included. The proportion of men qualified for intervention for hip fracture was significantly lower according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (17.2%) compared with FRAX® (20.7%) (p < 0.001), with a similar pattern across all three age groups and in those with prediabetes. In contrast, the proportion of women qualified for intervention for major osteoporotic fracture was significantly higher according to TBS-adjusted FRAX® (4.6%) compared with FRAX® (3.7%) (p < 0.001), particularly among those with prediabetes 60−69 years. Conclusions: TBS-adjusted FRAX® led to small but significant changes in the proportions of individuals qualified for intervention in specific age groups and glucose regulation status.
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.