首页> 外文期刊>Bone >Comparison of different screening tools (FRAX?, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) to identify women with increased risk of fracture. A population-based prospective study
【24h】

Comparison of different screening tools (FRAX?, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) to identify women with increased risk of fracture. A population-based prospective study

机译:比较不同的筛查工具(FRAX?,OST,ORAI,OSIRIS,SCORE和年龄),以鉴定骨折风险增加的女性。基于人群的前瞻性研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To compare the power of FRAX? without bone mineral density (BMD) and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) in predicting fractures. Methods: This study was a prospective, population-based study performed in Denmark comprising 3614 women aged 40-90. years, who returned a questionnaire concerning items on risk factors for osteoporosis. Fracture risk was calculated using the different screening tools (FRAX?, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS and SCORE) for each woman. The women were followed using the Danish National Register registering new major osteoporotic fractures during 3. years, counting only the first fracture per person. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and statistics and Harrell's index were calculated. Agreement between the tools was calculated by kappa statistics. Results: A total of 4% of the women experienced a new major osteoporotic fracture during the follow-up period. There were no differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values between FRAX? and the simpler tools; AUC values between 0.703 and 0.722 (p. = 0.86). Also, Harrell's C values were very similar between the tools. Agreement between the tools was modest. Conclusion: During 3. years follow-up FRAX? did not perform better in the fracture risk prediction compared with simpler tools such as OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE or age alone in a screening scenario where BMD was not measured. These findings suggest that simpler models based on fewer risk factors, which would be easier to use in clinical practice by the GP or the patient herself, could just as well as FRAX? be used to identify women with increased risk of fracture. Summary: Comparison of FRAX? and simpler screening tools (OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE) in predicting fractures indicate that FRAX? did not perform better in fracture risk prediction compared with the simpler tools or even age alone in a screening scenario without bone mineral density assessment.
机译:目的:比较FRAX的功能?无需使用骨矿物质密度(BMD)和更简单的筛查工具(仅使用OST,ORAI,OSIRIS,SCORE和年龄即可)来预测骨折。方法:本研究是在丹麦进行的一项前瞻性,基于人群的研究,其中包括3614名40-90岁的女性。年,他返回了一份有关骨质疏松症危险因素项目的问卷。对于每个女性,使用不同的筛查工具(FRAX?,OST,ORAI,OSIRIS和SCORE)计算出骨折风险。根据丹麦国家注册簿对这些妇女进行了追踪,记录了3年中新的主要骨质疏松性骨折,仅计算了每人的第一次骨折。计算接收器工作特性曲线(ROC)下的面积以及统计量和Harrell指数。工具之间的一致性是通过kappa统计数据计算得出的。结果:在随访期间,共有4%的妇女发生了新的严重骨质疏松性骨折。 FRAX之间曲线下的面积(AUC)值没有差异吗?和更简单的工具; AUC值介于0.703和0.722之间(p = 0.86)。而且,工具之间的Harrell的C值非常相似。这些工具之间的协议不多。结论:在3年的随访中FRAX?在没有测量BMD的筛查情况下,与简单的工具(例如OST,ORAI,OSIRIS,SCORE或年龄)相比,在骨折风险预测中的效果并不理想。这些发现表明,基于较少风险因素的更简单模型(与GPAX或FRAX一样,可以更容易在GP或患者本人的临床实践中使用)?用于识别骨折风险增加的女性。摘要:FRAX的比较?预测骨折的简单筛查工具(OST,ORAI,OSIRIS,SCORE)表明FRAX?在没有骨矿物质密度评估的筛查方案中,与简单的工具相比,在骨折风险预测中表现不佳,甚至在单独年龄的情况下。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号