BACKGROUND: Determining anatomic sites and circumstances under which a fracture may be a consequence of osteoporosis is a topic of ongoing debate and controversy that is important to both clinicians and researchers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and generated an evidence report on fracture risk based on specific anatomic bone sites and fracture diagnosis codes. Using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness process, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of 11 experts who rated fractures according to their likelihood of being because of osteoporosis based on the evidence report. Fracture sites (as determined by International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification codes) were stratified by four clinical risk factor categories based on age, sex, race/ethnicity (African American and Caucasian), and presence or absence of trauma. RESULTS: Consistent with current clinical experience, the fractures rated most likely because of osteoporosis were the femoral neck, pathologic fractures of the vertebrae, and lumbar and thoracic vertebral fractures. The fractures rated least likely because of osteoporosis were open proximal humerus fractures, skull, and facial bones. The expert panel rated open fractures of the arm (except proximal humerus) and fractures of the tibia/fibula, patella, ribs, and sacrum as being highly likely because of osteoporosis in older Caucasian women but a lower likelihood in younger African American men. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis attribution scores for all fracture sites were determined by a multidisciplinary expert panel to provide an evidence-based continuum of the likelihood of a fracture being associated with osteoporosis.
BACKGROUND: Determining anatomic sites and circumstances under which a fracture may be a consequence of osteoporosis is a topic of ongoing debate and controversy that is important to both clinicians and researchers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and generated an evidence report on fracture risk based on specific anatomic bone sites and fracture diagnosis codes. Using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness process, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of 11 experts who rated fractures according to their likelihood of being because of osteoporosis based on the evidence report. Fracture sites (as determined by International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification codes) were stratified by four clinical risk factor categories based on age, sex, race/ethnicity (African American and Caucasian), and presence or absence of trauma. RESULTS: Consistent with current clinical experience, the fractures rated most likely because of osteoporosis were the femoral neck, pathologic fractures of the vertebrae, and lumbar and thoracic vertebral fractures. The fractures rated least likely because of osteoporosis were open proximal humerus fractures, skull, and facial bones. The expert panel rated open fractures of the arm (except proximal humerus) and fractures of the tibia/fibula, patella, ribs, and sacrum as being highly likely because of osteoporosis in older Caucasian women but a lower likelihood in younger African American men. CONCLUSION:Osteoporosis attribution scores for all fracture sites were determined by a multidisciplinary expert panel to provide an evidence-based continuum of the likelihood of a fracture being associated with osteoporosis.
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; H Johansson; J A Eisman; S Fujiwara; H Kroger; R Honkanen; L J Melton; T O'Neill; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Nguyen D Nguyen; Chatlert Pongchaiyakul; Jacqueline R Center; John A Eisman; Tuan V Nguyen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: M Naves; J B Díaz-López; C Gómez; A Rodríguez-Rebollar; M Rodríguez-García; J B Cannata-Andía Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-04-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Joseph M Zmuda; Stephen R Wisniewski; Shanthi Krishnaswami; Lisa Palermo; Katie L Stone; Dennis M Black; Michael C Nevitt Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-11-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: H Che; V Breuil; B Cortet; J Paccou; T Thomas; L Chapuis; F Debiais; N Mehsen-Cetre; R M Javier; S Loiseau Peres; C Roux; K Briot Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Thomas Baum; Melanie Kutscher; Dirk Müller; Christoph Räth; Felix Eckstein; Eva-Maria Lochmüller; Ernst J Rummeny; Thomas M Link; Jan S Bauer Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: B J Edwards; W J Gradishar; M E Smith; J A Pacheco; J Holbrook; J M McKoy; B Nardone; S Tica; V Godinez-Puig; A W Rademaker; I B Helenowski; A D Bunta; P H Stern; S T Rosen; D P West; T A Guise Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Carolyn J Crandall; Chunyuan Wu; Erin S LeBlanc; James M Shikany; Laura Carbone; Tonya Orchard; Fridtjof Thomas; Jean Wactawaski-Wende; Wenjun Li; Jane A Cauley; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: L Hansen; K D Petersen; S A Eriksen; B L Langdahl; P A Eiken; K Brixen; B Abrahamsen; J-E B Jensen; T Harsløf; P Vestergaard Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 4.507