Literature DB >> 28734709

Worldwide Fracture Prediction.

Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan1, Marlene Chakhtoura2, Jane A Cauley3, Nariman Chamoun2.   

Abstract

The substantial increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases in general and osteoporosis in particular, necessitates the establishment of efficient and targeted diagnosis and treatment strategies. This chapter reviews and compares different tools for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; it also provides an overview of different treatment guidelines adopted by countries worldwide. While access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD) is limited in most areas in the world, the introduction of risk calculators that combine risk factors, with or without BMD, have resulted in a paradigm shift in osteoporosis screening and management. To-date, forty eight risk assessment tools that allow risk stratification of patients are available, however only few are externally validated and tested in a population-based setting. These include Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool; Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument; Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation; Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada calculator; Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator (FRAX); Garvan; and QFracture. These tools vary in the number of risk factors incorporated. We present a detailed analysis of the development, characteristics, validation, performance, advantages and limitations of these tools. The World Health Organization proposes a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 as an operational diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, and many countries have also adopted this cut-off as an intervention threshold in their treatment guidelines. With the introduction of the new fracture assessment calculators, many countries chose to include fracture risk as one of the major criteria to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Of the 52 national guidelines identified in 36 countries, 30 included FRAX derived risk in their intervention threshold and 22 were non-FRAX based.  No universal tool or guideline approach will address the needs of all countries worldwide.  Osteoporosis screening and management guidelines are best tailored according to the needs and resources of individual counties. While few countries have succeeded in generating valuable epidemiological data on osteoporotic fractures, to validate their risk calculators and base their guidelines, many have yet to find the resources to assess variations and secular trends in fractures, the performance of various calculators, and ultimately adopt the most convenient care pathway algorithms.
Copyright © 2017 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FRAX; Fracture risk calculator; guidelines; risk factors

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28734709     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.617


  18 in total

Review 1.  Senescent and apoptotic osteocytes and aging: Exercise to the rescue?

Authors:  Vanessa D Sherk; Clifford J Rosen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Comparing three machine learning approaches to design a risk assessment tool for future fractures: predicting a subsequent major osteoporotic fracture in fracture patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Authors:  B C S de Vries; J H Hegeman; W Nijmeijer; J Geerdink; C Seifert; C G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Patient-Specific Bone Multiscale Modelling, Fracture Simulation and Risk Analysis-A Survey.

Authors:  Amadeus C S de Alcântara; Israel Assis; Daniel Prada; Konrad Mehle; Stefan Schwan; Lucia Costa-Paiva; Munir S Skaf; Luiz C Wrobel; Paulo Sollero
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Effects of Milk and Dairy Products on the Prevention of Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Fractures in Europeans and Non-Hispanic Whites from North America: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pilar Matía-Martín; Macarena Torrego-Ellacuría; Angélica Larrad-Sainz; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; Federico Cuesta-Triana; Miguel Ángel Rubio-Herrera
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 8.701

5.  Recent fall and high imminent risk of fracture in older men and women.

Authors:  Kyoung Min Kim; Li-Yung Lui; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 12.782

Review 6.  Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Authors:  Xuemei Sun; Yancong Chen; Yinyan Gao; Zixuan Zhang; Lang Qin; Jinlu Song; Huan Wang; Irene Xy Wu
Journal:  Aging Dis       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 9.968

Review 7.  Approaches to Fracture Risk Assessment and Prevention.

Authors:  Sanford Baim; Robert Blank
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 5.096

8.  Lower Serum Irisin Levels Are Associated with Increased Osteoporosis and Oxidative Stress in Postmenopausal.

Authors:  Ali Badr Roomi; Wassan Nori; Roaa Mokram Hamed
Journal:  Rep Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2021-04

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.  Agreement between the Turkey Guidelines and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool®-based Intervention Threshold.

Authors:  Ahmet Imerci; Nevres Hurriyet Aydogan; Kursad Tosun
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2018-05-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.