Literature DB >> 22129640

Probability of fractures predicted by FRAX® and observed incidence in the Spanish ECOSAP Study cohort.

Jesús González-Macías1, Fernando Marin, Joan Vila, Adolfo Díez-Pérez.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of the Spanish version of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) to predict the observed incident fractures in the ECOSAP Study cohort.
METHODS: 5201 women, aged 65 or older, were enrolled in a three-year, prospective study by a non-randomized sampling of consecutive cases in 58 primary care centers in Spain. Participants completed an osteoporosis and fracture risk questionnaire and attended follow-up visits every 6 months. All radiologically or surgically confirmed low-trauma, non-spinal fractures were collected. The individual 10-year absolute risks of hip and major osteoporotic fractures were calculated with the FRAX® algorithms for Spain without the inclusion of the bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. Calibration was evaluated by comparing the three-year estimated (E) fractures predicted with FRAX® with the number of observed (O) fractures, and their discriminative ability for the probability of new fractures with the area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS: Fifty (0.96%) women sustained an incident hip fracture, and 201 (3.81%) women presented with major osteoporotic fractures (hip, forearm or humerus). The E/O ratios for hip and major osteoporotic fractures were 1.10 and 0.66 respectively. Clinical vertebral fractures were not collected; therefore, the E/O ratio for major fractures should be expected to be lower. The difference between E and O cases reached statistical significance (χ(2), p<0.001). Areas under the ROC curves were 0.640 and 0.615 for hip and major osteoporotic fractures respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish FRAX® underestimates the risk for major osteoporotic fractures. The estimated risk for hip fractures was similar to the observed fractures; however the algorithm had only modest discriminative ability. These results should be interpreted in the context of the relatively low number of observed fractures, especially at the hip.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22129640     DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.11.006

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


  16 in total

1.  Prevalence of osteoporotic fracture risk factors and antiosteoporotic treatments in the Valencia region, Spain. The baseline characteristics of the ESOSVAL cohort.

Authors:  J Sanfélix-Genovés; G Sanfélix-Gimeno; S Peiró; I Hurtado; C Fluixà; A Fuertes; J C Campos; V Giner; C Baixauli
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Comparison between various fracture risk assessment tools.

Authors:  W D Leslie; L M Lix
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  How well do the FRAX (Australia) and Garvan calculators predict incident fractures? Data from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  K L Holloway-Kew; Y Zhang; A G Betson; K B Anderson; D Hans; N K Hyde; G C Nicholson; N A Pocock; M A Kotowicz; J A Pasco
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Authors:  Xuemei Sun; Yancong Chen; Yinyan Gao; Zixuan Zhang; Lang Qin; Jinlu Song; Huan Wang; Irene Xy Wu
Journal:  Aging Dis       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 9.968

5.  Comparison of HU histogram analysis and BMD for proximal femoral fragility fracture assessment: a retrospective single-center case-control study.

Authors:  Sun-Young Park; Hong Il Ha; Injae Lee; Hyun Kyung Lim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 7.034

6.  The risk of osteoporotic fractures and its associating risk factors according to the FRAX model in the Iranian patients: a follow-up cohort.

Authors:  Shahnaz Ghafoori; Abbasali Keshtkar; Patricia Khashayar; Mehdi Ebrahimi; Majid Ramezani; Zahra Mohammadi; Farzane Saeidifard; Nasrin Nemati; Maryam Khoshbin; Solmaz Azizian; Fatemeh Zare; Sara Shirazi; Bagher Larijani
Journal:  J Diabetes Metab Disord       Date:  2014-10-22

7.  Changing trends in the epidemiology of hip fracture in Spain.

Authors:  R Azagra; F López-Expósito; J C Martin-Sánchez; A Aguyé; N Moreno; C Cooper; A Díez-Pérez; E M Dennison
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  FRAX® tool, the WHO algorithm to predict osteoporotic fractures: the first analysis of its discriminative and predictive ability in the Spanish FRIDEX cohort.

Authors:  Rafael Azagra; Genís Roca; Gloria Encabo; Amada Aguyé; Marta Zwart; Sílvia Güell; Núria Puchol; Emili Gene; Enrique Casado; Pilar Sancho; Silvia Solà; Pere Torán; Milagros Iglesias; Maria Carmen Gisbert; Francesc López-Expósito; Jesús Pujol-Salud; Yolanda Fernandez-Hermida; Ana Puente; Mireia Rosàs; Vicente Bou; Juan José Antón; Gustavo Lansdberg; Juan Carlos Martín-Sánchez; Adolf Díez-Pérez; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Systematic review of major osteoporotic fracture to hip fracture incidence rate ratios worldwide: implications for Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)-derived estimates.

Authors:  Marlene Chakhtoura; Hiba Dagher; Sima Sharara; Sara Ajjour; Nariman Chamoun; Jane Cauley; Ziyad Mahfoud; Robert Boudreau; Ghada El Hajj Fuleihan
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 6.390

10.  A FRAX Experience in Korea: Fracture Risk Probabilities with a Country-specific Versus a Surrogate Model.

Authors:  Yong-Ki Min; Dong-Yun Lee; Youn-Soo Park; Young-Wan Moon; Seung-Jae Lim; Young-Kyun Lee; DooSeok Choi; Byung-Koo Yoon
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2015-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.