Literature DB >> 28940052

Prediction of major osteoporotic and hip fractures in Australian men using FRAX scores adjusted with trabecular bone score.

K L Holloway1,2, M Mohebbi3, A G Betson3, D Hans4, N K Hyde3, S L Brennan-Olsen3,5,6, M A Kotowicz3,7, J A Pasco3,7,8.   

Abstract

There was no significant difference between the areas under receiver operating characteristics (AUROCs) and diagnostic indexes (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for either major osteoporotic or hip fracture FRAX scores when comparing the unadjusted and trabecular bone score (TBS)-adjusted scores.
INTRODUCTION: FRAX 10-year probability of fracture can be calculated with adjustment for the TBS. Studies have shown that TBS can improve FRAX assessments in some populations. This study aimed to determine if TBS-adjusted FRAX score is better than the unadjusted score for predicting major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture in Australian men.
METHODS: This study involved 591 men aged 40-90 years, enrolled in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Incident MOF (n = 50) and hip fractures (n = 14) were ascertained using radiological reports. Median follow-up time was 9.5 years (IQR7.5-11.4). Diagnostic indexes were calculated using cut points of ≥20% for MOF and ≥3% for the hip. AUROC curves were also determined for adjusted and unadjusted scores as continuous variables.
RESULTS: Sensitivity was higher in the TBS-adjusted scores (MOF 4%, hip 78.6%) than the unadjusted scores (MOF 2%, hip 57.1%), with a decrease in specificity (MOF 98.9 vs 99.3%; hip 79.9 vs 83.9%). When considering TBS-adjusted and unadjusted FRAX as continuous scores, AUROCs were 0.738 and 0.740, respectively, for MOF and 0.849 and 0.848 for the hip.
CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of fractures by MOF or hip FRAX was not substantially improved by TBS adjustment. There was no difference in AUROCs or diagnostic indexes for cut-off points of ≥20 for MOF and ≥3% for hip FRAX.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FRAX score; Hip fracture; Major osteoporotic fracture; Men; Trabecular bone score

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28940052     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4226-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  25 in total

1.  The Epidemiology of Incident Fracture from Cradle to Senescence.

Authors:  Julie A Pasco; Stephen E Lane; Sharon L Brennan-Olsen; Kara L Holloway; Elizabeth N Timney; Gosia Bucki-Smith; Amelia G Morse; Amelia G Dobbins; Lana J Williams; Natalie K Hyde; Mark A Kotowicz
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Correlations between trabecular bone score, measured using anteroposterior dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry acquisition, and 3-dimensional parameters of bone microarchitecture: an experimental study on human cadaver vertebrae.

Authors:  Didier Hans; Nicole Barthe; Stephanie Boutroy; Laurent Pothuaud; Renaud Winzenrieth; Marc-Antoine Krieg
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 2.617

3.  Is there an interaction between socioeconomic status and FRAX 10-year fracture probability determined with and without bone density measures? Data from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study of female cohort.

Authors:  S L Brennan; S E Quirk; S M Hosking; M A Kotowicz; K L Holloway; D J Moloney; A G Dobbins; J A Pasco
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  Trabecular bone score may improve FRAX® prediction accuracy for major osteoporotic fractures in elderly Japanese men: the Fujiwara-kyo Osteoporosis Risk in Men (FORMEN) Cohort Study.

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

Review 5.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.

Authors:  J A Swets
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-06-03       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  The assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  Aasis Unnanuntana; Brian P Gladnick; Eve Donnelly; Joseph M Lane
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  The exclusion of high trauma fractures may underestimate the prevalence of bone fragility fractures in the community: the Geelong Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  K M Sanders; J A Pasco; A M Ugoni; G C Nicholson; E Seeman; T J Martin; B Skoric; S Panahi; M A Kotowicz
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 8.  Trabecular bone score (TBS) as a new complementary approach for osteoporosis evaluation in clinical practice.

Authors:  N C Harvey; C C Glüer; N Binkley; E V McCloskey; M-L Brandi; C Cooper; D Kendler; O Lamy; A Laslop; B M Camargos; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; J A Kanis
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Adjusting fracture probability by trabecular bone score.

Authors:  Eugene V McCloskey; Anders Odén; Nicholas C Harvey; William D Leslie; Didier Hans; Helena Johansson; John A Kanis
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2015-03-22       Impact factor: 4.333

10.  Lumbar spine texture enhances 10-year fracture probability assessment.

Authors:  W D Leslie; H Johansson; J A Kanis; O Lamy; A Oden; E V McCloskey; D Hans
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Bone health in ageing men.

Authors:  Karel David; Nick Narinx; Leen Antonio; Pieter Evenepoel; Frank Claessens; Brigitte Decallonne; Dirk Vanderschueren
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 2.  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

3.  Five-year fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women, using both the POL-RISK calculator and the Garvan nomogram: the Silesia Osteo Active Study.

Authors:  Piotr Zagórski; Elżbieta Tabor; Katarzyna Martela-Tomaszek; Piotr Adamczyk; Wojciech Pluskiewicz
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 2.617

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.