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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Marques, Andréa
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Lucas, Raquel, Simões, Eugénia, Verstappen, Suzanne M. M., Jacobs, Johannes W. G., Silva, José A. P. da
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/108360
https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509
Resumo: Objective E valuate 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). A UCs 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_9ac7573400bae38f1cdba4669055baf1
oai_identifier_str oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/108360
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 studyepidemiology; osteoporosis; outcomes researchObjective E valuate 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). A UCs 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.BMJ Publishing Group2017info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/108360http://hdl.handle.net/10316/108360https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509por2056-5933Marques, AndréaLucas, RaquelSimões, EugéniaVerstappen, Suzanne M. M.Jacobs, Johannes W. G.Silva, José A. P. dainfo: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:RCAAP2023-08-25T11:18:55Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/108360Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:24:39.722038Repositório 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, Andréa
epidemiology; osteoporosis; outcomes research
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, Andréa
author_facet Marques, Andréa
Lucas, Raquel
Simões, Eugénia
Verstappen, Suzanne M. M.
Jacobs, Johannes W. G.
Silva, José A. P. da
author_role author
author2 Lucas, Raquel
Simões, Eugénia
Verstappen, Suzanne M. M.
Jacobs, Johannes W. G.
Silva, José A. P. da
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Marques, Andréa
Lucas, Raquel
Simões, Eugénia
Verstappen, Suzanne M. M.
Jacobs, Johannes W. G.
Silva, José A. P. da
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv epidemiology; osteoporosis; outcomes research
topic epidemiology; osteoporosis; outcomes research
description Objective E valuate 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). A UCs 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
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/10316/108360
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/108360
https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509
url http://hdl.handle.net/10316/108360
https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000509
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2056-5933
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
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_ 1799134130589401088