ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2025
Assessing the burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population: insights from linked healthcare claims and health interview survey data used for surveillance.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare claims and survey data are increasingly used to assess the osteoporosis burden, but agreement and comparative validity of derived indicators are poorly documented. We show that no single data source can estimate the osteoporosis burden. Instead, coupling data sources allows assessing its burden and associated treatment and knowledge gaps. PURPOSE: Healthcare claims data are increasingly used to assess the burden of osteoporosis and fragility fractures, although comparative evidence with other sources and especially self-reported data remains limited. Using the linkage of the French National Health Data System (SNDS) and Health Care and Insurance Survey (ESPS 2010-2014), we evaluated the agreement and comparative validity (concurrent and predictive) of several osteoporosis and clinical fragility fracture indicators and provided comprehensive estimates of their prevalence.
methodsIndividual data from 5039 ESPS participants aged ≥ 25 years were linked to SNDS. Follow-up data included a health self-assessment in 2014 and 5-year occurrence of fractures and mortality. Prevalence was estimated for each indicator (self-reported in ESPS, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, and clinical fragility fractures in SNDS) using several combinations and capture-recapture. Kappa statistics assessed agreement between indicators. Multivariate models evaluated determinants of disagreement between sources and associations of indicators with health outcomes and new fractures (concurrent and predictive validity).
resultsPrevalence estimated by capture-recapture was 7.6% versus 4.1% and 2.2% for self-reported and treated osteoporosis, respectively. Agreement between indicators was slight to moderate. Education, limitation in daily activities, and number of chronic conditions influenced agreement. SNDS indicators had better validity than self-reported osteoporosis, especially for predicting new fractures.
conclusionThe French healthcare claims database provides valid indicators, although it is insufficient to assess and monitor the burden of osteoporosis in the general population. Coupling these indicators with self-reported data may help overcome these limitations and assess the treatment and knowledge gaps associated with osteoporosis.
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.