Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 717

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association of BMD and FRAX Score With Risk of Fracture in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Schwartz, Ann V.·2011·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2011.715
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with higher bone mineral density (BMD) and paradoxically with increased fracture risk. It is not known if low BMD, central to fracture prediction in older adults, identifies fracture risk in patients with DM. OBJECTIVE: To determine if femoral neck BMD T score and the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm (FRAX) score are associated with hip and nonspine fracture risk in older adults with type 2 DM. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 3 prospective observational studies with adjudicated fracture outcomes (Study of Osteoporotic Fractures [December 1998-July 2008]; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study [March 2000-March 2009]; and Health, Aging, and Body Composition study [April 1997-June 2007]) were analyzed in older community-dwelling adults (9449 women and 7436 men) in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported incident fractures, which were verified by radiology reports. RESULTS: Of 770 women with DM, 84 experienced a hip fracture and 262 a nonspine fracture during a mean (SD) follow-up of 12.6 (5.3) years. Of 1199 men with DM, 32 experienced a hip fracture and 133 a nonspine fracture during a mean (SD) follow-up of 7.5 (2.0) years. Age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for 1-unit decrease in femoral neck BMD T score in women with DM were 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.48) for hip fracture and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.31-1.75) for nonspine fracture, and in men with DM were 5.71 (95% CI, 3.42-9.53) for hip fracture and 2.17 (95% CI, 1.75-2.69) for nonspine fracture. The FRAX score was also associated with fracture risk in participants with DM (HRs for 1-unit increase in FRAX hip fracture score, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07, for women with DM and 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.27, for men with DM; HRs for 1-unit increase in FRAX osteoporotic fracture score, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05, for women with DM and 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14, for men with DM). However, for a given T score and age or for a given FRAX score, participants with DM had a higher fracture risk than those without DM. For a similar fracture risk, participants with DM had a higher T score than participants without DM. For hip fracture, the estimated mean difference in T score for women was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.31-0.87) and for men was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.09-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with type 2 DM, femoral neck BMD T score and FRAX score were associated with hip and nonspine fracture risk; however, in these patients compared with participants without DM, the fracture risk was higher for a given T score and age or for a given FRAX score.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2011.715

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schwartz, A. V.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2011-06-01
Volume
305
Issue
21
Pages
2184
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2011.715
OpenAlex
W2157048373
Cited by
717
References
4
FWCI
34.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.