Pitfalls in the external validation of FRAX
- First Online:
- 548 Downloads
Recent studies have evaluated the performance of FRAX® in independent cohorts. The interpretation of most is problematic for reasons summarised in this perspective.
FRAX is an extensively validated assessment tool for the prediction of fracture in men and women. The aim of this study was to review the methods used since the launch of FRAX to further evaluate this instrument.
This covers a critical review of studies investigating the calibration of FRAX or assessing its performance characteristics in external cohorts.
Most studies used inappropriate methodologies to compare the performance characteristics of FRAX with other models. These included discordant parameters of risk (comparing incidence with probabilities), comparison with internally derived predictors and inappropriate use and interpretation of receiver operating characteristic curves. These deficits markedly impair interpretation of these studies.
Cohort studies that have evaluated the performance of FRAX need to be interpreted with caution and preferably re-evaluated.
KeywordsClinical risk factors Fracture probability FRAX Osteoporotic fracture Receiver operating characteristics
- 13.Kanis JA on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group (2008) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, UK. Available at http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/Google Scholar
- 14.Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, Scientific Advisory Council of Osteoporosis Canada (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 23(182):864–873Google Scholar
- 17.National Osteoporosis Foundation (2008) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. National Osteoporosis Foundation. www.nof.org, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 22.Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, Kanis JA (2010) Spine-hip discordance and fracture risk assessment: a physician-friendly FRAX enhancement. Osteoporos Int. Oct 20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 20959961Google Scholar
- 38.Singer BR, McLauchlan CJ, Robinson CM, Christie J (1998) Epidemiology of fracture in 15,000 adults. The influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg 80B:234–238Google Scholar
- 41.Melton LJ (1995) Epidemiology of fractures. In: Riggs BL, Melton LJ (eds) Osteoporosis: etiology, diagnosis and management, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 225–227Google Scholar
- 45.Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ et al. (2009) Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art.No.: D007146.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub2
- 47.Langsetmo L, Nguyen TV, Nguyen ND et al (2010) Independent external validation of nomograms for predicting risk of low-trauma fracture and hip fracture. CMAJ. doi:10.1503/cmaj.100458
- 52.Collins GS, Mallett S, Altman DG (2011) Predicting risk of osteoporotic and hip fracture in the United Kingdom: prospective independent and external validation of QFractureScores. BMJ 342:d3651. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3651
- 53.Cummins NM, Poku EK, Towler MR, O'Driscoll OM, Ralston SH (2011) Clinical risk factors for osteoporosis in Ireland and the UK: a comparison of FRAX and QFractureScores. Calcif Tissue Int 89:172–177Google Scholar
- 54.Fujiwara S, Hamaya E, Goto W, Masunari N, Furukawa K, Fukunaga M, Nakamura T, Miyauchi A, Chen P (2011) Vertebral fracture status and the World Health Organization risk factors for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk in Japan. Bone 49(3):520–525Google Scholar