Underevaluation of fractures by self-report: an analysis from the FRISBEE cohort

Baleanu, Felicia; Moreau, Michel; Kinnard, V.; Iconaru, Laura; Karmali, Rafik; Rozenberg, Serge; Rubinstein, Michel; Paesmans, Marianne; Bergmann, Pierre; Body, Jean-Jacques

doi:10.1007/s11657-020-00739-y

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ascertainment of fractures was systematic, and all osteoporotic fractures were validated by a radiology and/or a surgical report in order to minimize any misclassification. (15,16) In conclusion, our data indicate that, in terms of calibration, the Belgian FRAX estimated quite well hip fractures but not major osteoporotic fractures, while the Garvan calculator appeared to better estimate "any Garvan" fractures. Both models had a good discriminatory value for hip fractures but only a moderate discriminatory ability for MOFs or "any Garvan" fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validated fractures not reported by study participants (“false negative” reports) were also included. ( 15 , 16 )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our data provide useful information on the accuracy of these prognostic models in clinical practice and also emphasize the importance of carefully comparing the performance of prediction tools in the same population. The ascertainment of fractures was systematic, and all osteoporotic fractures were validated by a radiology and/or a surgical report in order to minimize any misclassification (15,16).…”

Section: Accepted Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validated fractures not reported by study participants ("false negative" reports) were also included. (15,16) Estimated fracture risk: FRAX and Garvan absolute fracture risk prediction Baseline data were used to calculate the estimated 10-year risk of fracture for each individual with the FRAX tool adapted for Belgium. To compare results at 5 years, we multiplied the 10-year probabilities by 0.5 to convert to 5-year probabilities.…”

Section: Baseline Characteristics and Fracture Ascertainmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub‐Study of the FRISBEE Cohort

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validated fractures not reported by study participants (“false negative” reports) were also included. ( 15 , 16 )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accepted Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baseline Characteristics and Fracture Ascertainmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub‐Study of the FRISBEE Cohort

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prediction of an Imminent Fracture After an Index Fracture – Models Derived From the Frisbee Cohort

Iconaru

Charles

Baleanu

et al. 2020

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients who sustain a fracture are at greatest risk of recurrent fracture during the next 2 years. We propose three models to identify subjects most at risk of an imminent fracture, according to fracture site (any fracture, major osteoporotic fracture [MOF] or central). They were constructed using data of the prospective Frisbee cohort, which includes 3560 postmenopausal women aged 60 to 85 years who were followed for at least 5 years. A total of 881 subjects had a first incident validated fragility fracture before December 2018. Among these, we validated 130 imminent fractures occurring within the next 2 years; 79 were MOFs, and 88 were central fractures. Clinical risk factors were re-evaluated at the time of the index fracture. Fine and Gray proportional hazard models were derived separately for each group of fractures. The following risk factors were significantly associated with the risk of any imminent fracture: total hip bone mineral density (BMD) (p < 0.001), a fall history (p < 0.001), and comorbidities (p = 0.03). Age (p = 0.05 and p = 0.03, respectively) and a central fracture as the index fracture (p = 0.04 and p = 0.005, respectively) were additional predictors of MOFs and central fractures. The three prediction models are presented as nomograms. The calibration curves and the Brier scores based on bootstrap resampling showed calibration scores of 0.089 for MOF, 0.094 for central fractures, and 0.132 for any fractures. The predictive accuracy of the models expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve (AUC) were 0.74 for central fractures, 0.72 for MOFs, and 0.66 for all fractures, respectively. These AUCs compare well with those of FRAX and Garvan to predict the 5-or 10-year fracture probability. In summary, five predictors (BMD, age, comorbidities, falls, and central fracture as the incident fracture) allow the calculation with a reasonable accuracy of the imminent risk of fracture at different sites (MOF, central fracture, and any fracture) after a recent sentinel fracture.

show abstract

Risk factors for imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underevaluation of fractures by self-report: an analysis from the FRISBEE cohort

Cited by 10 publications

References 15 publications

Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub‐Study of the FRISBEE Cohort

Independent External Validation of FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators: A Sub‐Study of the FRISBEE Cohort

Prediction of an Imminent Fracture After an Index Fracture – Models Derived From the Frisbee Cohort

Risk factors for imminent fractures: a substudy of the FRISBEE cohort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About