↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS study

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Osteoporosis, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS study
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11657-017-0389-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret L. Gourlay, Victor S. Ritter, Jason P. Fine, Robert A. Overman, John T. Schousboe, Peggy M. Cawthon, Eric S. Orwoll, Tuan V. Nguyen, Nancy E. Lane, Steven R. Cummings, Deborah M. Kado, Jodi A. Lapidus, Susan J. Diem, Kristine E. Ensrud

Abstract

Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), age plus femoral neck BMD T score, and three externally generated fracture risk tools had similar accuracy to identify older men who developed osteoporotic fractures. Risk tools with femoral neck BMD performed better than those without BMD. The externally developed risk tools were poorly calibrated. We compared the performance of fracture risk assessment tools in older men, accounting for competing risks including mortality. A comparative ROC curve analysis assessed the ability of the QFracture, FRAX® and Garvan fracture risk tools, and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T score with or without age to identify incident fracture in community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (N = 4994) without hip or clinical vertebral fracture or antifracture treatment at baseline. Among risk tools calculated with BMD, the discriminative ability to identify men with incident hip fracture was similar for FRAX (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73, 0.81), the Garvan tool (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.82), age plus femoral neck BMD T score (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.75, 0.83), and femoral neck BMD T score alone (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.81). Among risk tools calculated without BMD, the discriminative ability to identify hip fracture was similar for QFracture (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), FRAX (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), and the Garvan tool (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.67, 0.74). Correlated ROC curve analyses revealed better diagnostic accuracy for risk scores calculated with BMD compared with QFracture (P < 0.0001). Calibration was good for the internally generated BMD T score predictor with or without age and poor for the externally developed risk tools. In untreated older men without fragility fractures at baseline, an age plus femoral neck BMD T score classifier identified men with incident hip fracture as accurately as more complicated fracture risk scores.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,393,409
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Osteoporosis
#291
of 653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,400
of 329,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Osteoporosis
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.