Felicia Baleanu1, Michel Moreau2, Virginie Kinnard3, Laura Iconaru4, Rafik Karmali4, Serge Rozenberg5, Michel Rubinstein6, Marianne Paesmans2, Pierre Bergmann7, Jean-Jacques Body4. 1. Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Felicia.baleanu@chu-brugmann.be. 2. Data Centre, Inst. J. Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU St Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ixelles Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
We assessed the rate of non-reported fractures in the FRISBEE cohort. Over a median follow-up period of 9.2 years, we registered 992 fractures. The global percentage of non-reported fractures was 21.3%. Underreporting of fracture event might influence any model of fracture risk prediction. INTRODUCTION: Most fracture cohort studies rely on participant self-report of fracture event. This approach may lead to fracture underreporting. The purpose of the study was to assess the rate of non-reported fractures in a well-characterized population-based cohort of 3560 postmenopausal women, aged 60-85 years, included in the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) study. METHODS: Incident low-traumatic or non-traumatic fractures were registered annually during phone calls. In 2018, we reviewed the medical files of 67.9% of our study participants and identified non-reported fractures ("false negatives fractures (FN)"). We also evaluated whether the rate of FN was influenced by baseline patients' characteristics and fracture risk factors. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 9.2 years, we registered 992 fractures (781 by self-report, confirmed by a radiological report and 211 unreported). The global false negative rate for all fractures was 21.3%, including 22% for MOFs (major osteoporotic fractures), 13.1% for other major fractures, and 25.8% for minor fractures. The rate of non-reported fractures varied by fracture site: for MOFs, it was 2.7% (n = 2/73) at the hip, 5.3% at the proximal humerus (n = 5/94), 7.1% at the wrist (n = 11/154), and 46.5% at the spine (n = 100/215). For "other major" fractures, the highest rate of false negatives fractures was found at the pelvic bone (21%, n = 13/62), followed by the elbow (17.9%, n = 5/28), long bones (10.5%, n = 2/19), ankle (6.2%, n = 4/65), and knee (5.9%, n = 1/17). Older subjects (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = 0.003), subjects with early non-substituted menopause (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.3; P = 0.04), with a lower education level (OR 1.5; 95%CI, 1.1-2.2; P = 0.01), and those under drug therapy for osteoporosis (OR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = 0.05) were associated with a higher rate of FN. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, underreporting of a substantial proportion of fracture events will influence any model of fracture risk prediction and induce bias when estimating the associations between candidate risk factors and incident fractures.
We assessed the rate of non-reported fractures in the FRISBEE cohort. Over a median follow-up period of 9.2 years, we registered 992 fractures. The global percentage of non-reported fractures was 21.3%. Underreporting of fracture event might influence any model of fracture risk prediction. INTRODUCTION: Most fracture cohort studies rely on participant self-report of fracture event. This approach may lead to fracture underreporting. The purpose of the study was to assess the rate of non-reported fractures in a well-characterized population-based cohort of 3560 postmenopausal women, aged 60-85 years, included in the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) study. METHODS: Incident low-traumatic or non-traumatic fractures were registered annually during phone calls. In 2018, we reviewed the medical files of 67.9% of our study participants and identified non-reported fractures ("false negatives fractures (FN)"). We also evaluated whether the rate of FN was influenced by baseline patients' characteristics and fracture risk factors. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 9.2 years, we registered 992 fractures (781 by self-report, confirmed by a radiological report and 211 unreported). The global false negative rate for all fractures was 21.3%, including 22% for MOFs (major osteoporotic fractures), 13.1% for other major fractures, and 25.8% for minor fractures. The rate of non-reported fractures varied by fracture site: for MOFs, it was 2.7% (n = 2/73) at the hip, 5.3% at the proximal humerus (n = 5/94), 7.1% at the wrist (n = 11/154), and 46.5% at the spine (n = 100/215). For "other major" fractures, the highest rate of false negatives fractures was found at the pelvic bone (21%, n = 13/62), followed by the elbow (17.9%, n = 5/28), long bones (10.5%, n = 2/19), ankle (6.2%, n = 4/65), and knee (5.9%, n = 1/17). Older subjects (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = 0.003), subjects with early non-substituted menopause (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.3; P = 0.04), with a lower education level (OR 1.5; 95%CI, 1.1-2.2; P = 0.01), and those under drug therapy for osteoporosis (OR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = 0.05) were associated with a higher rate of FN. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, underreporting of a substantial proportion of fracture events will influence any model of fracture risk prediction and induce bias when estimating the associations between candidate risk factors and incident fractures.
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
Authors: L Iconaru; M Moreau; F Baleanu; V Kinnard; A Charles; A Mugisha; M Surquin; F Benoit; R Karmali; M Paesmans; J J Body; P Bergmann Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.507