Worldwide Fracture Prediction

dc.contributor.authorEl-Hajj Fuleihan, Ghada A.
dc.contributor.authorChakhtoura, Marlene Toufic
dc.contributor.authorCauley, Jane A.
dc.contributor.authorChamoun, Nariman
dc.contributor.departmentSpecialized Clinical Programs and Services
dc.contributor.departmentInternal Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentCalcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program (CaMOP)
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:20:21Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:20:21Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractThe substantial increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases in general and osteoporosis in particular, necessitates the establishment of efficient and targeted diagnosis and treatment strategies. This chapter reviews and compares different tools for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; it also provides an overview of different treatment guidelines adopted by countries worldwide. While access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD) is limited in most areas in the world, the introduction of risk calculators that combine risk factors, with or without BMD, have resulted in a paradigm shift in osteoporosis screening and management. To-date, forty eight risk assessment tools that allow risk stratification of patients are available, however only few are externally validated and tested in a population-based setting. These include Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool; Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument; Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation; Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada calculator; Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator (FRAX); Garvan; and QFracture. These tools vary in the number of risk factors incorporated. We present a detailed analysis of the development, characteristics, validation, performance, advantages and limitations of these tools. The World Health Organization proposes a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 as an operational diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, and many countries have also adopted this cut-off as an intervention threshold in their treatment guidelines. With the introduction of the new fracture assessment calculators, many countries chose to include fracture risk as one of the major criteria to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Of the 52 national guidelines identified in 36 countries, 30 included FRAX derived risk in their intervention threshold and 22 were non-FRAX based. No universal tool or guideline approach will address the needs of all countries worldwide. Osteoporosis screening and management guidelines are best tailored according to the needs and resources of individual counties. While few countries have succeeded in generating valuable epidemiological data on osteoporotic fractures, to validate their risk calculators and base their guidelines, many have yet to find the resources to assess variations and secular trends in fractures, the performance of various calculators, and ultimately adopt the most convenient care pathway algorithms. © 2017 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.008
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85024866410
dc.identifier.pmid28734709
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/34258
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Densitometry
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectFracture risk calculator
dc.subjectFrax
dc.subjectGuidelines
dc.subjectRisk factors
dc.subjectAbsorptiometry, photon
dc.subjectAfrica
dc.subjectAge factors
dc.subjectAlgorithms
dc.subjectAsia
dc.subjectBone density
dc.subjectCancellous bone
dc.subjectEurope
dc.subjectGlobal health
dc.subjectHip fractures
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectIncidence
dc.subjectLatin america
dc.subjectNorth america
dc.subjectOsteoporosis
dc.subjectOsteoporotic fractures
dc.subjectPractice guidelines as topic
dc.subjectRisk assessment
dc.subjectSurveys and questionnaires
dc.subjectValidation studies as topic
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectCalibration
dc.subjectCanadian association of radiologists and osteoporosis canada calculator
dc.subjectCohort analysis
dc.subjectDual energy x ray absorptiometry
dc.subjectEvaluation and follow up
dc.subjectFracture
dc.subjectFracture risk assessment calculator
dc.subjectFragility fracture
dc.subjectFuturology
dc.subjectGarvan test
dc.subjectHip fracture
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectIntermethod comparison
dc.subjectLongevity
dc.subjectMedical geography
dc.subjectMedline
dc.subjectMiddle east
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal disease assessment
dc.subjectOsteoporosis risk assessment instrument
dc.subjectOsteoporosis self assessment tool
dc.subjectPractice guideline
dc.subjectPrediction
dc.subjectPredictive value
dc.subjectPredictor variable
dc.subjectPriority journal
dc.subjectQfracture test
dc.subjectRace difference
dc.subjectRisk
dc.subjectRisk factor
dc.subjectSimple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation
dc.subjectSouth and central america
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectTrend study
dc.subjectAge
dc.subjectAlgorithm
dc.subjectComplication
dc.subjectDiagnostic imaging
dc.subjectEthnology
dc.subjectPhoton absorptiometry
dc.subjectProcedures
dc.subjectQuestionnaire
dc.subjectTrabecular bone
dc.subjectValidation study
dc.titleWorldwide Fracture Prediction
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2017-8854.pdf
Size:
936.8 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format