Literature DB >> 22820516

FRAX updates 2012.

Eugene McCloskey1, John A Kanis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an increasing recognition that the management of osteoporosis requires the characterization of fracture risk to be based on absolute risk rather than single measures such as bone mineral density (BMD). FRAX, the most widely used tool that incorporates clinical risk factors with or without BMD, was launched in 2008. This brief review addresses the development of FRAX since then and describes some of the issues that continue to be discussed as FRAX plays an increasing role in clinical practice. RECENT
FINDINGS: FRAX is a platform technology that will continue to develop. High-quality updated epidemiology of fracture and mortality can lead to recalibration of models. The addition of new risk factors is complex as the process requires validation in an international setting as well as a comprehensive assessment of how such new factors interact with the existing FRAX variables. Nonetheless, clinical interpretation can be enhanced by taking into account the potential adjustments of FRAX probabilities and several of these are described.
SUMMARY: FRAX is being incorporated in an increasing number of clinical guidelines, and assessment and intervention thresholds have been provided to instruct clinical decision-making. There is an increasing body of evidence that patients deemed at highest risk of fracture by FRAX, with or without the use of BMD, will overlap significantly with those identified by previous guidelines and will respond to appropriate osteoporosis therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22820516     DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e328356d2f5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol        ISSN: 1040-8711            Impact factor:   5.006


  16 in total

1.  The effects of body mass index on the hereditary influences that determine peak bone mass in mother-daughter pairs (KNHANES V).

Authors:  K M Kim; Y J Kim; S H Choi; S Lim; J H Moon; J H Kim; S W Kim; H C Jang; C S Shin
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Commentary: measuring quality of care in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Stuart L Silverman; Jeffrey Curtis
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  Low bone mineral density in Friedreich ataxia.

Authors:  Andreas Eigentler; Wolfgang Nachbauer; Eveline Donnemiller; Werner Poewe; Rudolf W Gasser; Sylvia Boesch
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.847

Review 4.  How to predict the risk of fracture in HIV?

Authors:  Michael T Yin; Julian Falutz
Journal:  Curr Opin HIV AIDS       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 5.  Comparison between various fracture risk assessment tools.

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

Review 6.  Causes, mechanisms and management of paediatric osteoporosis.

Authors:  Outi Mäkitie
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 20.543

7.  Possible FRAX-based intervention thresholds for a cohort of Chinese postmenopausal women.

Authors:  E Cheung; C-L Cheung; A W C Kung; K C B Tan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Guidance for the diagnosis, prevention and therapy of osteoporosis in Italy.

Authors:  Luisella Cianferotti; Maria Luisa Brandi
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2012-12-20

Review 9.  Celiac disease and risk of fracture in adults--a review.

Authors:  A M Hjelle; E Apalset; P Mielnik; J Bollerslev; K E A Lundin; G S Tell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 10.  Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment.

Authors:  Terry J Aspray
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.346

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.