Do we need bone mineral density to estimate osteoporotic fracture risk? A 10-year prospective multicentre validation study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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:RCAAP2024-09-27T08:33:02Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/111596Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-09-27T08:33:02Repositório 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 |
mluisa.alvim@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1817547941893636096 |