N J MacIntyre1, C P Recknor, S L Grant, J C Recknor. 1. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, IAHS-403, 1400 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 1C7, macint@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The Safe Functional Motion test (SFM) was developed to document movement strategies used to perform everyday activities that may increase the risk for osteoporotic fracture. After adjusting for variables known to predict vertebral compression fracture (VCF), baseline score on the SFM was a significant independent predictor of incident VCF at 1- and 3-year follow-ups. INTRODUCTION: Functional movements may contribute to risk for VCF. We hypothesize that scores on the SFM, a performance-based test of physical function, are associated with incident VCF. METHODS: An osteoporosis clinic database was queried for men and women ≥ 50 years with an initial SFM and corresponding data for prevalent VCF, history of injurious falls, femoral neck bone mineral density (fnBMD), osteoporosis medication use, and incident morphometric VCF at 1-year (n = 878) and 3-year follow-ups (n = 503). Multiple logistic regressions, adjusted for gender, age, injurious fall(s), fnBMD, prevalent VCF at baseline, and osteoporosis medication use, were used to determine whether SFM score was associated with incident VCF at follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline SFM score was a significant independent predictor of incident VCF at 1-year follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (95 % confidence intervals (CI)) = 0.818 (0.707, 0.948); p < 0.008) and 3-year follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) = 0.728 (0.628, 0.844); p < 0.0001). Baseline fnBMD and osteoporosis medication use were significant predictors at 1-year (p = 0.05 and < 0.0001, respectively) and 3-year (p < 0.01 and 0.001, respectively) follow-ups. At 3-year follow-up, gender and prevalent VCF were also significant predictors (p = 0.003 and 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For every 10-point increase in SFM score, the odds of future VCF decreases by 18 % at 1 year and 27 % at 3 years after adjusting for known covariates. The SFM may aid in the identification of modifiable functional risk factors for VCF.
UNLABELLED: The Safe Functional Motion test (SFM) was developed to document movement strategies used to perform everyday activities that may increase the risk for osteoporotic fracture. After adjusting for variables known to predict vertebral compression fracture (VCF), baseline score on the SFM was a significant independent predictor of incident VCF at 1- and 3-year follow-ups. INTRODUCTION: Functional movements may contribute to risk for VCF. We hypothesize that scores on the SFM, a performance-based test of physical function, are associated with incident VCF. METHODS: An osteoporosis clinic database was queried for men and women ≥ 50 years with an initial SFM and corresponding data for prevalent VCF, history of injurious falls, femoral neck bone mineral density (fnBMD), osteoporosis medication use, and incident morphometric VCF at 1-year (n = 878) and 3-year follow-ups (n = 503). Multiple logistic regressions, adjusted for gender, age, injurious fall(s), fnBMD, prevalent VCF at baseline, and osteoporosis medication use, were used to determine whether SFM score was associated with incident VCF at follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline SFM score was a significant independent predictor of incident VCF at 1-year follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (95 % confidence intervals (CI)) = 0.818 (0.707, 0.948); p < 0.008) and 3-year follow-up (adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) = 0.728 (0.628, 0.844); p < 0.0001). Baseline fnBMD and osteoporosis medication use were significant predictors at 1-year (p = 0.05 and < 0.0001, respectively) and 3-year (p < 0.01 and 0.001, respectively) follow-ups. At 3-year follow-up, gender and prevalent VCF were also significant predictors (p = 0.003 and 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For every 10-point increase in SFM score, the odds of future VCF decreases by 18 % at 1 year and 27 % at 3 years after adjusting for known covariates. The SFM may aid in the identification of modifiable functional risk factors for VCF.
Authors: J D Adachi; G Loannidis; C Berger; L Joseph; A Papaioannou; L Pickard; E A Papadimitropoulos; W Hopman; S Poliquin; J C Prior; D A Hanley; W P Olszynski; T Anastassiades; J P Brown; T Murray; S A Jackson; A Tenenhouse Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Nelson B Watts; David L Kendler; Chui Kin Yuen; Jonathan D Adachi; Nicole Ferko Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Li-Yung Lui; Lisa Palermo; Kristine E Ensrud; Teresa A Hillier; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; C De Laet; H Johansson; A Oden; P Delmas; J Eisman; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; H Kroger; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Bone Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Chan Gao; Brian P Chen; Michael B Sullivan; Jasmine Hui; Jean A Ouellet; Janet E Henderson; Neil Saran Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 5.555