Literature DB >> 20156606

Ten-year probability of osteoporotic fracture in 2012 Polish women assessed by FRAX and nomogram by Nguyen et al.-Conformity between methods and their clinical utility.

W Pluskiewicz1, P Adamczyk, E Franek, P Leszczynski, E Sewerynek, H Wichrowska, L Napiorkowska, T Kostyk, M Stuss, W Stepien-Klos, K S Golba, B Drozdzowska.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the cross-sectional study was to establish the degree of conformity between 10-year probability of osteoporotic fracture, assessed by FRAX, and using the nomograms, as proposed by Nguyen at al.
METHODS: Postmenopausal Polish women (2012) were examined in their mean age of 68.5+/-7.9 years (age range 55-90 years). Fracture probability by FRAX was based on age, BMI, prior fracture, hip fracture in parents, steroid use, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol use, secondary osteoporosis and T-score for femoral neck BMD. Fracture probability by Nguyen's nomograms was based on age, the number of prior fractures, the number of falls and T-score for femoral neck BMD.
RESULTS: The mean conformity rate was 79.1% for any fracture risk (for threshold 20%) and 79.5% for hip fracture (threshold 3%). Any and hip fracture risks were significantly higher for both methods in women with fracture history in comparison to those without fracture and increased with ageing. The influence of prior fracture and ageing was more evident in Nguyen's nomograms. ROC analyses of any fracture risk in FRAX and Nguyen's methods demonstrated the area under curve (AUC) at 0.833 and 0.879, respectively. Similar analyses for hip fracture demonstrated AUCs for FRAX and Nguyen's technique at 0.726 and 0.850, respectively. The AUCs for Nguyen's nomograms were significantly larger than the AUCs for FRAX (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The mean conformity for any fracture risk is 79.1% and 79.5% for hip fracture. Nguyen's nomograms seem to be more efficient in fracture risk assessment, especially for hip fractures, due to a higher accuracy of the method. The information on the number of falls during the last year and multiple fractures ought to be incorporated into the method of fracture risk prediction. MINI-ABSTRACT: The degree of conformity was assessed in a group of 2012 women between 10-year FRAX prognosis of fracture and Nguyen et al.'s nomograms. The mean conformity for any fracture risk is 79.1% and 79.5% for hip fracture. Nguyen's nomograms seem to be more efficient in fracture risk assessment due to higher accuracy. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20156606     DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.02.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  25 in total

1.  Fracture risk prediction using FRAX®: a 10-year follow-up survey of the Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study.

Authors:  J Tamaki; M Iki; E Kadowaki; Y Sato; E Kajita; S Kagamimori; Y Kagawa; H Yoneshima
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Predictive value of FRAX for fracture in obese older women.

Authors:  Melissa Premaor; Richard A Parker; Steve Cummings; Kris Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Li-Yung Lui; Theresa Hillier; Juliet Compston
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Predicting fractures in an international cohort using risk factor algorithms without BMD.

Authors:  Philip N Sambrook; Julie Flahive; Fred H Hooven; Steven Boonen; Roland Chapurlat; Robert Lindsay; Tuan V Nguyen; Adolfo Díez-Perez; Johannes Pfeilschifter; Susan L Greenspan; David Hosmer; J Coen Netelenbos; Jonathan D Adachi; Nelson B Watts; Cyrus Cooper; Christian Roux; Maurizio Rossini; Ethel S Siris; Stuart Silverman; Kenneth G Saag; Juliet E Compston; Andrea LaCroix; Stephen Gehlbach
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Comments on Sandhu et al.: prognosis of fracture: evaluation of predictive accuracy of the FRAX(TM) algorithm and Garvan nomogram.

Authors:  W Pluskiewicz; B Drozdzowska
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  One-leg standing time and hip-fracture prediction.

Authors:  H Lundin; M Sääf; L-E Strender; S Nyren; S-E Johansson; H Salminen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 6.  Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX.

Authors:  J A Kanis; A Oden; H Johansson; E McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-11-26       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Estimation of 10-year probability bone fracture in a selected sample of Palestinian people using fracture risk assessment tool.

Authors:  Mai B Aker; Adham S Abu Taha; Sa'ed H Zyoud; Ansam F Sawalha; Samah W Al-Jabi; Waleed M Sweileh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Assessment of individual fracture risk: FRAX and beyond.

Authors:  Joop P W van den Bergh; Tineke A C M van Geel; Willem F Lems; Piet P Geusens
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.096

9.  Were you identified to be at high fracture risk by FRAX® before your osteoporotic fracture occurred?

Authors:  Xiao-feng Chen; Xiao-lin Li; Hui Zhang; Ge-jun Liu
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 10.  A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Cyrus Cooper; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.617

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.