Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Marques, A
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Lucas, R, Simões, E, Verstappen, SMM, Jacobs, JWG, da Silva, JAP
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111596
Resumo: Objective Evaluate the performance of FRAX®, with and without bone mineral densitometry (BMD), in predicting the occurrence of fragility fractures over 10 years. Methods Participants aged ≥40 years at baseline, with a complete set of data and a minimum of 8.5 years of follow-up were identified from three cohorts (n=2626). Ten-year fracture risk at baseline were estimated with FRAX® and assessed by comparison with observed fractures and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.12 (1.5) years, 178 participants suffered a major osteoporotic (MOP) fracture and 28 sustained a hip fracture. The predictive performance of FRAX® was superior to that of BMD alone for both MOP and hip fractures. The area under the curve (AUC) of FRAX® without BMD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79) for MOP fractures and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for hip fractures. No significant improvements were found when BMD was added to clinical variables to predict either MOP (0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82, p=0.25) or hip fractures (0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.89, p=0.72). AUCs for FRAX® (with and without BMD) were greater for men than for women. FRAX®, with and without BMD, tended to underestimate the number of MOP fractures and to overestimate the number of hip fractures in females. In men, the number of observed fractures were within the 95% CI of the number predicted, both with and without BMD. Conclusion FRAX® without BMD provided good fracture prediction. Adding BMD to FRAX® did not improve the performance of the tool in the general population.
id RCAP_1660290954eb2e269cbdd2542fb5d572
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/111596
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation studyFRAXBone mineral densitometryObjective Evaluate the performance of FRAX®, with and without bone mineral densitometry (BMD), in predicting the occurrence of fragility fractures over 10 years. Methods Participants aged ≥40 years at baseline, with a complete set of data and a minimum of 8.5 years of follow-up were identified from three cohorts (n=2626). Ten-year fracture risk at baseline were estimated with FRAX® and assessed by comparison with observed fractures and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.12 (1.5) years, 178 participants suffered a major osteoporotic (MOP) fracture and 28 sustained a hip fracture. The predictive performance of FRAX® was superior to that of BMD alone for both MOP and hip fractures. The area under the curve (AUC) of FRAX® without BMD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79) for MOP fractures and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for hip fractures. No significant improvements were found when BMD was added to clinical variables to predict either MOP (0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82, p=0.25) or hip fractures (0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.89, p=0.72). AUCs for FRAX® (with and without BMD) were greater for men than for women. FRAX®, with and without BMD, tended to underestimate the number of MOP fractures and to overestimate the number of hip fractures in females. In men, the number of observed fractures were within the 95% CI of the number predicted, both with and without BMD. Conclusion FRAX® without BMD provided good fracture prediction. Adding BMD to FRAX® did not improve the performance of the tool in the general population.BMJ20172017-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10216/111596eng2056-593310.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509Marques, ALucas, RSimões, EVerstappen, SMMJacobs, JWGda Silva, JAPinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-29T14:30:26Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/111596Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:02:44.490104Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
title Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
spellingShingle Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
Marques, A
FRAX
Bone mineral densitometry
title_short Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
title_full Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
title_fullStr Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
title_full_unstemmed Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
title_sort Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
author Marques, A
author_facet Marques, A
Lucas, R
Simões, E
Verstappen, SMM
Jacobs, JWG
da Silva, JAP
author_role author
author2 Lucas, R
Simões, E
Verstappen, SMM
Jacobs, JWG
da Silva, JAP
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Marques, A
Lucas, R
Simões, E
Verstappen, SMM
Jacobs, JWG
da Silva, JAP
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv FRAX
Bone mineral densitometry
topic FRAX
Bone mineral densitometry
description Objective Evaluate the performance of FRAX®, with and without bone mineral densitometry (BMD), in predicting the occurrence of fragility fractures over 10 years. Methods Participants aged ≥40 years at baseline, with a complete set of data and a minimum of 8.5 years of follow-up were identified from three cohorts (n=2626). Ten-year fracture risk at baseline were estimated with FRAX® and assessed by comparison with observed fractures and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.12 (1.5) years, 178 participants suffered a major osteoporotic (MOP) fracture and 28 sustained a hip fracture. The predictive performance of FRAX® was superior to that of BMD alone for both MOP and hip fractures. The area under the curve (AUC) of FRAX® without BMD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79) for MOP fractures and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for hip fractures. No significant improvements were found when BMD was added to clinical variables to predict either MOP (0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82, p=0.25) or hip fractures (0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.89, p=0.72). AUCs for FRAX® (with and without BMD) were greater for men than for women. FRAX®, with and without BMD, tended to underestimate the number of MOP fractures and to overestimate the number of hip fractures in females. In men, the number of observed fractures were within the 95% CI of the number predicted, both with and without BMD. Conclusion FRAX® without BMD provided good fracture prediction. Adding BMD to FRAX® did not improve the performance of the tool in the general population.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111596
url http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111596
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2056-5933
10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799135952039313408