ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2025
External validation of FRISBEE 2-year and 5-year fracture prediction models in a fracture liaison service cohort.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We externally validated the FRISBEE models of 2-year and 5-year fracture risk prediction in 517 women with index fractures. Both models overestimated the fracture risk. Recalibration of the FRISBEE models are needed before use in Norwegian women with recent fractures. PURPOSE: We externally validated the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) groups' 2-year and 5-year fracture risk models.
methodsWe included women above 50 years with a recent fracture from the consent-based part of the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative study (NoFRACT). They had bone mineral density assessed and filled in a questionnaire including risk factors for fracture at baseline between October 2015 and December 2017. We calculated and validated the 2-year and 5-year fracture risk using the FRISBEE equation models.
resultsOf 517 women aged 65.5 ± 8.6 years with fractures, 94 (18%), 55 (11%), and 31 (6%) sustained a subsequent fracture of any type, major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), or central fracture, during 4.7 ± 1.3 years mean follow-up. The area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval (CI)) for any type of fracture, MOF, and central fracture was 0.57 (0.51-0.63), 0.57 (0.46-0.67), and 0.65 (0.53-0.77), respectively, for the FRISBEE 2-year risk models and 0.57 (0.51-0.64), 0.58 (0.50-0.67), and 0.67 (0.57-0.76) for the FRISBEE 5-year risk models. The calibration slopes (with 95% CI) that compared observed vs. predicted probabilities for fracture across deciles of risk for any type of fracture, MOF, and central fracture were all low: 0.34 (0.02-0.64), 0.33 (- 0.09-0.74), and 0.61 (0.16-1.06), in the FRISBEE 2-year models, and 0.54 (0.13-0.95), 0.43 (0.05-0.80), and 0.69 (0.31-1.08), in the FRISBEE 5-year models.
conclusionOverall, the FRISBEE models overestimated both 2-year and 5-year fracture risk. Recalibration is needed before these models can be used in Norwegian women with recent fractures.
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.