Literature DB >> 24243719

Major osteoporotic to hip fracture ratios in canadian men and women with Swedish comparisons: a population-based analysis.

Anna Lam1, William D Leslie, Lisa M Lix, Marina Yogendran, Suzanne N Morin, Sumit R Majumdar.   

Abstract

Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tools are calibrated from country-specific fracture epidemiology. Although hip fracture data are usually available, data on non-hip fractures for most countries are often lacking. In such cases, rates are often estimated by assuming similar non-hip to hip fracture ratios from historical (1987 to 1996) Swedish data. Evidence that countries share similar fracture ratios is limited. Using data from Manitoba, Canada (2000 to 2007, population 1.2 million), we identified 21,850 incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) in men and women aged >50 years. Population-based age- and sex-specific ratios of clinical vertebral, forearm, and humerus fractures to hip fractures were calculated, along with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All ratios showed decreasing trends with increasing age for both men and women. Men and women showed similar vertebral/hip fracture ratios (all p > 0.1, with ORs 0.86 to 1.25). Forearm/hip and humerus/hip fracture ratios were significantly lower among men than women (forearm/hip ratio: p < 0.01 for all age groups, with ORs 0.29 to 0.53; humerus/hip ratio: p < 0.05 for all age groups [except 80 to 84 years] with ORs 0.46 to 0.86). Ratios for any MOF/hip fracture were also significantly lower among men than women in all but two subgroups (p < 0.05 for all age groups [except 80 to 84 and 90+ years] with ORs 0.48 to 0.87). Swedish vertebral/hip fracture ratios were similar to the Canadian fracture ratios (within 7%) but significantly lower for other sites (men and women: 46% and 35% lower for forearm/hip ratios, 19% and 15% lower for humerus/hip ratios, and 19% and 23% lower for any MOF/hip ratios). These differences have implications for updating and calibrating FRAX tools, fracture risk estimation, and intervention rates. Moreover, wherever possible, it is important that countries try to collect accurate non-hip fracture data.
© 2014 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DXA; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FRACTURE RISK ASSESSMENT; GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES; OSTEOPOROSIS

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24243719     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2146

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  23 in total

Review 1.  Insights from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW).

Authors:  Nelson B Watts
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 43.330

2.  The incidence of a first major osteoporotic fracture in Iceland and implications for FRAX.

Authors:  K Siggeirsdottir; T Aspelund; H Johansson; E F Gudmundsson; B Mogensen; B Y Jonsson; V Gudnason; E McCloskey; A Oden; G Sigurdsson; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  FRAX for fracture prediction shorter and longer than 10 years: the Manitoba BMD registry.

Authors:  W D Leslie; S R Majumdar; S N Morin; L M Lix; H Johansson; A Oden; E V McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Burden of high fracture probability worldwide: secular increases 2010-2040.

Authors:  A Odén; E V McCloskey; J A Kanis; N C Harvey; H Johansson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  MOF/Hip Fracture Ratio in a Belgian Cohort of Post-menopausal Women (FRISBEE): Potential Impact on the FRAX® Score.

Authors:  A Mugisha; P Bergmann; V Kinnard; L Iconaru; F Baleanu; A Charles; M Surquin; S Rozenberg; F Benoit; J J Body
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 6.  A brief history of FRAX.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Helena Johansson; Nicholas C Harvey; Eugene V McCloskey
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 2.617

Review 7.  Overview of Fracture Prediction Tools.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Nicholas C Harvey; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey; William D Leslie
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.617

8.  A country-specific FRAX model for Botswana.

Authors:  M Kebaetse; S Nkhwa; M Mogodi; J Masunge; Y P Gureja; M Ramabu; T Mmopelwa; I Sharif; A Orford; N C Harvey; E V McCloskey; J A Cauley; J A Kanis; H Johansson
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.617

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.  The Epidemiology of Hip and Major Osteoporotic Fractures in a Dutch Population of Community-Dwelling Elderly: Implications for the Dutch FRAX® Algorithm.

Authors:  Corinne Klop; Paco M J Welsing; Hubert G M Leufkens; Petra J M Elders; Jetty A Overbeek; Joop P van den Bergh; Johannes W J Bijlsma; Frank de Vries
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.