NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention Diagnosis, and Therapy (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 285(6):785–95
World Health Organization (2003) Prevention and management of osteoporosis: report of a WHO scientific group. (WHO Technical Report Series; no. 921). World Health Organization, Geneva
Scientific Advisory Council of Osteoporosis Canada (2011) Osteoporosis Canada 2010 guidelines for the assessment of fracture risk. Can Assoc Radiol J 62(4):243–50
Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S3-7
Auais MA, Eilayyan O, Mayo NE (2012) Extended exercise rehabilitation after hip fracture improves patients’ physical function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther 92(11):1437–1451
Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81(9):646–56
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Liang W, Chikritzhs T (2016) The effect of age on fracture risk: a population-based cohort study. J Aging Res 2016:5071438
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Camal Ruggieri IN, Cícero AM, Issa JPM, Feldman S (2021) Bone fracture healing: perspectives according to molecular basis. J Bone Miner Metab 39:311–31
Armas LA, Recker RR (2012) Pathophysiology of osteoporosis: new mechanistic insights. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 41(3):475–86
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359(9321):1929–36
Cranney A, Jamal SA, Tsang JF, Josse RG, Leslie WD (2007) Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ 177(6):575–80
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Gittoes N, Gregson C, Harvey N et al (2017) UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):43
Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
Rabar S, Lau R, O’Flynn N, Li L, Barry P (2012) Risk assessment of fragility fractures: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 345:e3698
Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, Atkinson S, Brown JP, Feldman S et al (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182(17):1864–73
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L (2020) Chapter V: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 149–174
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372(71):1–9
Neu CM, Rauch F, Manz F, Schœnau EJ (2001) Modeling of cross-sectional bone size, mass and geometry at the proximal radius: a study of normal bone development using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 12:538–47
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M (2014) Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol 67(4):368–375
Beaudoin C, Moore L, Gagné M, Bessette L, Ste-Marie LG, Brown JP et al (2019) Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Osteoporos 30(4):721–740
Marques A, Ferreira RJ, Santos E, Loza E, Carmona L, da Silva JA (2015) The accuracy of osteoporotic fracture risk prediction tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 74(11):1958–1967
Rubin KH, Friis-Holmberg T, Hermann AP, Abrahamsen B, Brixen K (2013) Risk assessment tools to identify women with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture: complexity or simplicity? A systematic review. J Bone Miner Res 28(8):1701–1717
Sun X, Chen Y, Gao Y, Zhang Z, Qin L, Song J et al (2022) Prediction models for osteoporotic fractures risk: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Aging Dis 13(4):1215–1238
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Adami G, Biffi A, Porcu G, Ronco R, Alvaro R, Bogini R et al (2023) A systematic review on the performance of fracture risk assessment tools: FRAX, DeFRA FRA-HS. J Endocrinol Investig 46(11):2287–2297
Fink HA, Butler ME, Claussen AM, Collins ES, Krohn KM, Taylor BC et al (2023) Performance of fracture risk assessment tools by race and ethnicity: a systematic review for the ASBMR task force on clinical algorithms for fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 38(12):1731–1741
Dagan N, Cohen-Stavi C, Leventer-Roberts M, Balicer RD (2017) External validation and comparison of three prediction tools for risk of osteoporotic fractures using data from population based electronic health records: retrospective cohort study. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 356:i6755
Holloway-Kew KL, Zhang Y, Betson AG, Anderson KB, Hans D, Hyde NK et al (2019) How well do the FRAX (Australia) and Garvan calculators predict incident fractures? Data from the Geelong osteoporosis study. Osteoporos Int 30(10):2129–2139
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bolland MJ, Siu AT, Mason BH, Horne AM, Ames RW, Grey AB et al (2011) Evaluation of the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculators in older women. J Bone Miner Res 26(2):420–427
Cook NR (2007) Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115(7):928–935
Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24(1):23–57
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S (2015) Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol 25(4):932–939
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21(1):128–138
Comments (0)