PURPOSE: To compare the power of FRAX® without bone mineral density (BMD) and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) in predicting fractures. METHODS: This study was a prospective, population-based study performed in Denmark comprising 3614 women aged 40-90 years, who returned a questionnaire concerning items on risk factors for osteoporosis. Fracture risk was calculated using the different screening tools (FRAX®, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS and SCORE) for each woman. The women were followed using the Danish National Register registering new major osteoporotic fractures during 3 years, counting only the first fracture per person. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and statistics and Harrell's index were calculated. Agreement between the tools was calculated by kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 4% of the women experienced a new major osteoporotic fracture during the follow-up period. There were no differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values between FRAX® and the simpler tools; AUC values between 0.703 and 0.722 (p = 0.86). Also, Harrell's C values were very similar between the tools. Agreement between the tools was modest. CONCLUSION: During 3 years follow-up FRAX® did not perform better in the fracture risk prediction compared with simpler tools such as OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE or age alone in a screening scenario where BMD was not measured. These findings suggest that simpler models based on fewer risk factors, which would be easier to use in clinical practice by the GP or the patient herself, could just as well as FRAX® be used to identify women with increased risk of fracture. SUMMARY: Comparison of FRAX® and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE) in predicting fractures indicate that FRAX® did not perform better in fracture risk prediction compared with the simpler tools or even age alone in a screening scenario without bone mineral density assessment.
PURPOSE: To compare the power of FRAX® without bone mineral density (BMD) and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) in predicting fractures. METHODS: This study was a prospective, population-based study performed in Denmark comprising 3614 women aged 40-90 years, who returned a questionnaire concerning items on risk factors for osteoporosis. Fracture risk was calculated using the different screening tools (FRAX®, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS and SCORE) for each woman. The women were followed using the Danish National Register registering new major osteoporotic fractures during 3 years, counting only the first fracture per person. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and statistics and Harrell's index were calculated. Agreement between the tools was calculated by kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 4% of the women experienced a new major osteoporotic fracture during the follow-up period. There were no differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values between FRAX® and the simpler tools; AUC values between 0.703 and 0.722 (p = 0.86). Also, Harrell's C values were very similar between the tools. Agreement between the tools was modest. CONCLUSION: During 3 years follow-up FRAX® did not perform better in the fracture risk prediction compared with simpler tools such as OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE or age alone in a screening scenario where BMD was not measured. These findings suggest that simpler models based on fewer risk factors, which would be easier to use in clinical practice by the GP or the patient herself, could just as well as FRAX® be used to identify women with increased risk of fracture. SUMMARY: Comparison of FRAX® and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE) in predicting fractures indicate that FRAX® did not perform better in fracture risk prediction compared with the simpler tools or even age alone in a screening scenario without bone mineral density assessment.
Authors: M Hoff; H E Meyer; S Skurtveit; A Langhammer; A J Søgaard; U Syversen; A Dhainaut; E Skovlund; B Abrahamsen; B Schei Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M Iki; Y Fujita; J Tamaki; K Kouda; A Yura; Y Sato; J-S Moon; R Winzenrieth; N Okamoto; N Kurumatani Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph C Larson; Nelson B Watts; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sören Möller; Michael K Skjødt; Lin Yan; Bo Abrahamsen; Lisa M Lix; Eugene V McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis; Katrine Hass Rubin; William D Leslie Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.507