ArticleJAMA network open2024
Hip Fracture Risk Assessment Tools for Adults Aged 80 Years and Older.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Claims-based frailty index and risk of hospitalisation for hip fracture among adults aged 60-74 years in Tokyo, Japan.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men study (MrOS): a 25-yr landmark study of skeletal health in older men.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026Article
- Gluteus maximus cross-sectional area/density in 1-year mortality prediction for oldest-old hip fracture patients.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- MMPro-HIP: multimodal progressive fusion model for elderly HIP fracture risk prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Screening for Osteoporosis in Nonagenarians: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Entropy, Assessed by Homeostatic Dysregulation on Electrocardiograms Predicts Fracture and Mortality.Aging cell · 2025Article
- Optimizing Surgical Strategies for Elderly Patients With Femoral Neck Fracture: The Critical Role of Comorbidities.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Hip Fractures: Clinical, Biomaterial and Biomechanical Insights into a Common Health Challenge.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Performance of USPSTF-recommended osteoporosis risk assessment tools in identifying osteoporosis in older men: a multicentre retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Association between the minimal model of hip structure and risk of hip fracture in Chinese adults.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Evaluating Barriers to Achieving the Minimal Important Change in Older Patients With Hip Fractures After Post-Acute Care.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: While adults aged 80 years and older account for 70% of hip fractures in the US, performance of fracture risk assessment tools in this population is uncertain. Objective: To compare performance of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator, and femoral neck bone mineral density (FNBMD) alone in 5-year hip fracture prediction. Design, Setting and Participants: Prognostic analysis of 3 prospective cohort studies including participants attending an index examination (1997 to 2016) at age 80 years or older. Data were analyzed from March 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants contacted every 4 or 6 months after index examination to ascertain incident hip fractures and vital status. Predicted 5-year hip fracture probabilities calculated using FRAX and Garvan models incorporating FNBMD and FNBMD alone. Model discrimination assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model calibration assessed by comparing observed vs predicted hip fracture probabilities within predicted risk quintiles. Results: A total of 8890 participants were included, with a mean (SD) age at index examination of 82.6 (2.7) years; 4906 participants (55.2%) were women, 866 (9.7%) were Black, 7836 (88.1%) were White, and 188 (2.1%) were other races and ethnicities. During 5-year follow-up, 321 women (6.5%) and 123 men (3.1%) experienced a hip fracture; 818 women (16.7%) and 921 men (23.1%) died before hip fracture. Among women, AUC was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) for FRAX, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.72) for Garvan, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for FNBMD alone (FNBMD superior to FRAX, P = .01; and Garvan, P = .01). Among men, AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.75) for FRAX, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) for Garvan, and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) for FNBMD alone (P < .001 Garvan and FNBMD alone superior to FRAX). Among both sexes, Garvan greatly overestimated hip fracture risk among individuals in upper quintiles of predicted risk, while FRAX modestly underestimated risk among those in intermediate quintiles of predicted risk. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of adults aged 80 years and older, FRAX and Garvan tools incorporating FNBMD compared with FNBMD alone did not improve 5-year hip fracture discrimination. FRAX modestly underpredicted observed hip fracture probability in intermediate-risk individuals. Garvan markedly overpredicted observed hip fracture probability in high-risk individuals. Until better prediction tools are available, clinicians should prioritize consideration of hip BMD, life expectancy, and patient preferences in decision-making regarding drug treatment initiation for hip fracture prevention in late-life adults.
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.