OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with fragility fractures who can be expected to have low bone mineral density (BMD) at the time of fracture and to assist FPs in deciding whether to refer patients for BMD testing. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest available dates through September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles reporting BMD test results of patients with fragility fractures who were managed in an orthopedic environment (eg, fracture clinic, emergency management by orthopedic surgeons, inpatients) were eligible for review. While the orthopedic environment has been identified as an ideal point for case finding, FPs are often responsible for investigation and treatment. Factors that potentially influenced BMD test results (eg, selection of fracture types, exclusion criteria) were identified. Studies with 2 or more selection factors of potential influence were flagged, and rates of low BMD were calculated including and excluding these studies. SYNTHESIS: The distribution of the proportion of persons with low BMD was summarized across studies using descriptive statistics. We calculated lower boundaries on this distribution, using standard statistical thresholds, to determine a lower threshold of the expected rate of low BMD. CONCLUSION: Family physicians evaluating patients with fragility fractures can expect that at least two-thirds of patients with fragility fractures who are older than 50 years of age will have low BMD (T score ≤ -1.0). With this a priori expectation, FPs might more readily conduct a fracture risk assessment and pursue warranted fracture risk reduction strategies following fragility fracture.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with fragility fractures who can be expected to have low bone mineral density (BMD) at the time of fracture and to assist FPs in deciding whether to refer patients for BMD testing. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest available dates through September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles reporting BMD test results of patients with fragility fractures who were managed in an orthopedic environment (eg, fracture clinic, emergency management by orthopedic surgeons, inpatients) were eligible for review. While the orthopedic environment has been identified as an ideal point for case finding, FPs are often responsible for investigation and treatment. Factors that potentially influenced BMD test results (eg, selection of fracture types, exclusion criteria) were identified. Studies with 2 or more selection factors of potential influence were flagged, and rates of low BMD were calculated including and excluding these studies. SYNTHESIS: The distribution of the proportion of persons with low BMD was summarized across studies using descriptive statistics. We calculated lower boundaries on this distribution, using standard statistical thresholds, to determine a lower threshold of the expected rate of low BMD. CONCLUSION: Family physicians evaluating patients with fragility fractures can expect that at least two-thirds of patients with fragility fractures who are older than 50 years of age will have low BMD (T score ≤ -1.0). With this a priori expectation, FPs might more readily conduct a fracture risk assessment and pursue warranted fracture risk reduction strategies following fragility fracture.
Authors: Earl R Bogoch; Victoria Elliot-Gibson; Dorcas E Beaton; Sophie A Jamal; Robert G Josse; Timothy M Murray Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Scott D Boden; Thomas A Einhorn; Tamara S Morgan; Laura L Tosi; James N Weinstein Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie; Heather Frame; Anthony Hodsman; Robert G Josse; Aliya Khan; Brian C Lentle; Jacques Lévesque; David J Lyons; Giuseppe Tarulli; Jacques P Brown Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Maria-Teresa Cuddihy; Peter C Amadio; Sherine E Gabriel; V Shane Pankratz; Robert L Kurland; L Joseph Melton Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-03-09 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: John H Hebb; Jason W Ashley; Lee McDaniel; Luke A Lopas; John Tobias; Kurt D Hankenson; Jaimo Ahn Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 3.494