Literature DB >> 20721930

Evaluation of the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculators in older women.

Mark J Bolland1, Amanda Ty Siu, Barbara H Mason, Anne M Horne, Ruth W Ames, Andrew B Grey, Greg D Gamble, Ian R Reid.   

Abstract

Fracture risk calculators estimate the absolute risk of osteoporotic fractures. We investigated the performance of the FRAX and Garvan Institute fracture risk calculators in healthy, older, New Zealand, postmenopausal women with normal bone mineral density (BMD) for their age. Fractures were ascertained in women initially enrolled in a 5-year trial of calcium supplements and followed on average for 8.8 years. Baseline data (1422 women, mean age 74 years, mean femoral neck BMD T-score -1.3) were used to estimate fracture risk during follow-up using the FRAX and Garvan calculators. The FRAX-New Zealand tool was used both with and without baseline BMD. The discrimination of the calculators was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves. The calibration was assessed by comparing estimated risk of fracture with fracture incidence across a range of estimated fracture risks and clinical factors. For each fracture subtype, the calculators had comparable moderate predictive discriminative ability (AUC range: hip fracture 0.67-0.70; osteoporotic fracture 0.62-0.64; any fracture 0.60-0.63) that was similar to that of models using only age and BMD. The Garvan calculator was well calibrated for osteoporotic fractures but overestimated hip fractures. FRAX with BMD underestimated osteoporotic and hip fractures. FRAX without BMD underestimated osteoporotic and overestimated hip fractures. In summary, none of the calculators provided better discrimination than models based on age and BMD, and their discriminative ability was only moderate, which may limit their clinical utility. The calibration varied, suggesting that the calculators should be validated in local cohorts before clinical use.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20721930     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  60 in total

1.  Fracture-risk calculators: Has their time come?

Authors:  Mark J Bolland
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Comment on Kanis et al.: Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX.

Authors:  M J Bolland; A Grey; G Gamble; I R Reid
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX: response to Bolland et al.

Authors:  J A Kanis; A Oden; H Johansson; E McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Validation of FRC, a fracture risk assessment tool, in a cohort of older men: the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study.

Authors:  Bruce Ettinger; Hau Liu; Terri Blackwell; Andrew R Hoffman; Kristine E Ensrud; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 2.617

8.  FRAX calculated without BMD does not correctly identify Caucasian men with densitometric evidence of osteoporosis.

Authors:  R C Hamdy; E Seier; K Whalen; W A Clark; K Hicks; T B Piggee
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Optimising the management of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Ziad Farrah; Ali Sm Jawad
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.659

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.