Dataset Information

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: UNLABELLED:We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern. INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis clinical fracture risk assessment instruments for predicting absolute fracture risk, or calibration, in populations other than their derivation cohorts. METHODS:We performed a systematic review, and MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple other literature sources were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and data extracted, including information about study participants, study design, potential sources of bias, and predicted and observed fracture probabilities. RESULTS:A total of 19,949 unique records were identified for review. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies. Six studies assessed the WHO's Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) instrument in five separate cohorts, and a variety of risk assessment instruments were evaluated in the remainder of the studies. Approximately half found good instrument calibration, with observed fracture probabilities being close to predicted probabilities for different risk categories. Studies that assessed the calibration of FRAX found mixed performance in different populations. A similar proportion of studies that evaluated simple risk assessment instruments (?5 variables) found good calibration when compared with studies that assessed complex instruments (>5 variables). Many studies had methodological features making them susceptible to bias. CONCLUSIONS:Few studies have evaluated the performance or calibration of osteoporosis fracture risk assessment instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts. Findings are mixed, and many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a possibility, raising concerns about use of these tools outside of the original derivation cohorts. Further studies are needed to assess the calibration of instruments in different populations prior to widespread use.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3962543 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Nayak S S Edwards D L DL Saleh A A AA Greenspan S L SL

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 20131009 1

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>We systematically reviewed the literature on the performance of osteoporosis absolute fracture risk assessment instruments. Relatively few studies have evaluated the calibration of instruments in populations separate from their development cohorts, and findings are mixed. Many studies had methodological limitations making susceptibility to bias a concern.<h4>Introduction</h4>The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the performance of osteoporosis cl ...[more]

PMID: 24105431

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is the most widely used tool for fracture prediction. It provides 10-year probabilities for hip and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). It uses country-specific hip fracture incidence and life expectancy data, and for most countries, MOF/hip fracture incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from Malmo Sweden. However, the risk of MOF varies by age, sex, and geography. The objective is to compare the MOF/hip IRRs across countries, by sex and age. This systematic review targeted observational studies of MOF and hip fractures in individuals >50 years (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019129259). One reviewer screened potential articles. Two reviewers completed duplicate and independent data abstraction, and assessed study quality based on population representativeness, study design and duration, definition of ethnicity, and fracture characteristics. We calculated the MOF/hip IRRs (95% confidence interval) and Z-values to compare IRRs in various countries to those for Sweden. We included 27 studies, of fair to good quality in the majority, from Europe (15), US and Canada (7), Asia (3), and Australia (2). The IRRs were twofold to 10-fold higher in younger compared to older age categories, and in women compared to men, with few exceptions. Within Europe, and using Sweden as a reference, MOF/Hip IRRs in women 50-54 years from Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, and UK were significantly lower by 38% to 60%. Findings were similar in men. At older ages, MOF/Hip IRRs were consistently lower in women from European countries compared to Sweden, by 10%-40% and 11%-51%, at 75-79 years and 85-89 years, respectively. Findings were heterogenous in men and in non-European countries. In conclusion, the MOF/hip fracture IRR may vary between countries. The variability at older ages may affect FRAX prediction when country-specific fracture IRRs are not used. Further research is needed to elucidate the implication of our findings to FRAX-derived MOF estimates in various countries. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Project description:BackgroundWith the broad availability of effective medications, identifying individuals bearing a higher risk for osteoporotic fractures has become an issue of major concern in modern medicine. In recent years various prognostic instruments have become available showing conflicting results regarding estimated risks for individual patients.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of current evidence and of opportunities for further research.Methodology/principal findingsSystematic review: We identified studies describing the development of instruments and all subsequent validations in electronic databases and reference lists of included studies. We screened for inclusion, read full papers and extracted data on salient clinical features, performance characteristics and quality in duplicate. Searches retrieved 5,275 records of which full texts of 167 papers were obtained after screening titles and abstract. We included 35 studies enrolling a total of 609,969 patients (median 2546) reporting on 31 derivations and 12 validations after assessing full texts. Median follow-up time was 4.1 years (IQR 3 to 7.7). Only four studies validated an instrument that was developed by another group. None of the existing instruments was validated more than once. The five most frequent included variables in the final model were age, body mass index, bone mass index, past history of falls, and maternal history of fractures. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate.ConclusionThere is a plethora of evidence available studying the association of risk profiles and the development of osteoporotic fractures. The small number of out-of-sample validations, the large variety of study characteristics, outcomes and follow-up periods impedes from deriving robust summaries and from conclusions regarding the clinical performance of many tools. First and foremost, future activity in this field should aim at reaching a consensus among clinical experts in respect to the existing instruments. Then we call for careful validations and expedient adaptations for local circumstances of the most promising candidates.

Project description:UnlabelledWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for DXA-determined osteoporosis or low bone density. Commonly evaluated risk instruments showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% at particular thresholds within various populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.IntroductionThe purpose of the study is to systematically review the performance of clinical risk assessment instruments for screening for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-determined osteoporosis or low bone density.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Multiple literature sources were searched, and data extracted and analyzed from included references.ResultsOne hundred eight references met inclusion criteria. Studies assessed many instruments in 34 countries, most commonly the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) instrument, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), and body weight criteria. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of <1 to identify US postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the femoral neck provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 89% (95%CI 82-96%) and 41% (95%CI 23-59%), respectively. Meta-analyses of studies evaluating OST using a cutoff threshold of 3 to identify US men with osteoporosis at the femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine provided summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of 88% (95%CI 79-97%) and 55% (95%CI 42-68%), respectively. Frequently evaluated instruments each had thresholds and populations for which sensitivity for osteoporosis or low bone mass detection approached or exceeded 90% but always with a trade-off of relatively low specificity.ConclusionsCommonly evaluated clinical risk assessment instruments each showed high sensitivity approaching or exceeding 90% for identifying individuals with DXA-determined osteoporosis or low BMD at certain thresholds in different populations but low specificity at thresholds required for high sensitivity. Simpler instruments, such as OST, generally performed as well as or better than more complex instruments.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough structured tools have been widely used to predict violence risk in specialist mental health settings, there is uncertainty about the extent and quality of evidence of their predictive performance. We aimed to systematically review the predictive performance of tools used to assess violence risk in forensic mental health, where they are routinely administered.MethodsIn our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched four databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and Global Health) from database inception to Nov 1, 2022, to identify studies examining the predictive performance of risk assessment tools in people discharged from forensic (secure) mental health hospitals. Systematic and narrative reviews were excluded from the review. Performance measures and descriptive statistics were extracted from published reports. A quality assessment was performed for each study using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted on the performance of instruments that were independently externally validated with a sample size greater than 100. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022304716.FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of 50 eligible publications, assessing the predictive performance of 36 tools, providing data for 10 460 participants (88% men, 12% women; median age [from 47 studies] was 35 years, IQR 33-38) from 12 different countries. Post-discharge interpersonal violence and crime was most often measured by new criminal offences or recidivism (47 [94%] of 50 studies); only three studies used informant or self-report data on physical aggression or violent behaviour. Overall, the predictive performance of risk assessment tools was mixed. Most studies reported one discrimination metric, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); other key performance measures such as calibration, sensitivity, and specificity were not presented. Most studies had a high risk of bias (49 [98%] of 50), partly due to poor analytical approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted for violent recidivism on 29 independent external validations from 19 studies with at least 100 patients. Pooled AUCs for predicting violent outcomes ranged from 0·72 (0·65-0·79; I2=0%) for H10, to 0·69 for the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 version 2 (95% CI 0·65-0·72; I2=0%) and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (0·63-0·75; I2=0%), to 0·64 for the Static-99 (0·53-0·73; I2=45%).InterpretationCurrent violence risk assessment tools in forensic mental health have mixed evidence of predictive performance. Forensic mental health services should review their use of current risk assessment tools and consider implementing those with higher-quality evidence in support.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:To examine the evidence underpinning recommendations to increase calcium intake through dietary sources or calcium supplements to prevent fractures.Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies of calcium intake with fracture as an endpoint. Results from trials were pooled with random effects meta-analyses.Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, and references from relevant systematic reviews. Initial searches undertaken in July 2013 and updated in September 2014.Randomised controlled trials or cohort studies of dietary calcium, milk or dairy intake, or calcium supplements (with or without vitamin D) with fracture as an outcome and participants aged >50.There were only two eligible randomised controlled trials of dietary sources of calcium (n=262), but 50 reports from 44 cohort studies of relations between dietary calcium (n=37), milk (n=14), or dairy intake (n=8) and fracture outcomes. For dietary calcium, most studies reported no association between calcium intake and fracture (14/22 for total, 17/21 for hip, 7/8 for vertebral, and 5/7 for forearm fracture). For milk (25/28) and dairy intake (11/13), most studies also reported no associations. In 26 randomised controlled trials, calcium supplements reduced the risk of total fracture (20 studies, n=58,573; relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96) and vertebral fracture (12 studies, n=48,967. 0.86, 0.74 to 1.00) but not hip (13 studies, n=56,648; 0.95, 0.76 to 1.18) or forearm fracture (eight studies, n=51,775; 0.96, 0.85 to 1.09). Funnel plot inspection and Egger's regression suggested bias toward calcium supplements in the published data. In randomised controlled trials at lowest risk of bias (four studies, n=44,505), there was no effect on risk of fracture at any site. Results were similar for trials of calcium monotherapy and co-administered calcium and vitamin D. Only one trial in frail elderly women in residential care with low dietary calcium intake and vitamin D concentrations showed significant reductions in risk of fracture.Dietary calcium intake is not associated with risk of fracture, and there is no clinical trial evidence that increasing calcium intake from dietary sources prevents fractures. Evidence that calcium supplements prevent fractures is weak and inconsistent.

Dataset Information

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Publications

Performance of risk assessment instruments for predicting osteoporotic fracture risk: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets