top of page
UNLABELLED: The impact of clinical risk factor-based absolute risk methods on the prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture is unknown. We applied absolute risk methods to 6646 subjects and found that the prevalence of elderly women deemed to be at high risk increased substantially, whereas the overall prevalence was highly dependent on the threshold used to designate high risk. INTRODUCTION: Many groups have advocated using absolute risk methods that incorporate clinical risk factors to target patients for osteoporosis therapy. We examined how the application of such absolute risk classification systems influences the prevalence of those considered to be at high risk for osteoporotic fracture and compared these systems to one based solely on BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 6646 subjects from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective, randomly selected, population-based cohort, we assessed three different systems for determining prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture: a BMD-based system; a simplified risk factor system incorporating age, sex, BMD, and two clinical risk factors; and a comprehensive system, incorporating age, sex, BMD, and seven clinical risk factors. The 10-year absolute risks of incident fragility fracture were compared across systems using three different high-risk thresholds. RESULTS: The prevalence of a T score
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment.
J Brent Richards et al., 2007
J Brent Richards, William D Leslie, Lawrence Joseph, Kerry Siminoski, David A Hanley, Jonathan D Adachi, Jacques P Brown, Suzanne Morin, Alexandra Papaioannou, Robert G Josse, Jerilynn C Prior, K Shawn Davison, Alan Tenenhouse, David Goltzman
bottom of page