Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 199–207

Fracture Risk Assessment: State of the Art, Methodologically Unsound, or Poorly Reported?

Authors

    • Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College AnnexeUniversity of Oxford
  • Karl Michaëlsson
    • Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of OrthopaedicsUppsala University
Evaluation and Management (M Kleerekoper, Section Editor)

DOI: 10.1007/s11914-012-0108-1

Cite this article as:
Collins, G.S. & Michaëlsson, K. Curr Osteoporos Rep (2012) 10: 199. doi:10.1007/s11914-012-0108-1

Abstract

Osteoporotic fractures, including hip fractures, are a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality as well as a major economic burden. Identifying individuals who are at an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture is an important challenge to be resolved. Recently, multivariable prediction tools have been developed to assist clinicians in the management of their patients by calculating their 10-year risk of fracture (FRAX, QFracture, Garvan) using a combination of known risk factors. These prediction models have revolutionized the way clinicians assess the risk of fracture. Studies evaluating the performance of prediction models in this and other areas of medicine have, however, been characterized by poor design, methodological conduct, and reporting. We examine recently developed fracture prediction models and critically discuss issues in their design, validation, and transparency.

Keywords

OsteoporosisHip fractureFracture risk assessmentClinical prediction modelsFRAXQFractureGarvanValidationDiscriminationCalibration

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012