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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures
Cummings, S. R., Browner, W., Cummings, S. R., Black, D. M., Nevitt, M. C., Browner, W., Genant, H. K., Cauley, J., Ensrud, K., Scott, J., et al. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92555-8 · Cited by 2,446
Self-citationUpdated Data on Proximal Femur Bone Mineral Levels of US Adults
Looker, A. C., Wahner, H. W., Dunn, W. L., Calvo, M. S., Harris, T. B., Heyse, S. P., Johnston Jr, C. C., & Lindsay, R. (1998) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s001980050093 · Cited by 1,121 · cited 1×
“Weight, mean (SD), kg 66 (12) 71 (15) 73 (14) 82 (13) 88 (14) 90 (14) 69 (14) 77 (14) 78 (15) 80 (13) 85 (14) 85 (13)”
Newman, A. B., Haggerty, C. L., Goodpaster, B., Harris, T., Kritchevsky, S., Nevitt, M., Miles, T. P., Visser, M., & The Health, A. (2003) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51105.x · Cited by 505
Self-citationImplications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA
Dawson-Hughes, B., Tosteson, A. N. A., Melton, L. J., Baim, S., Favus, M. J., Khosla, S., & Lindsay, R. L. (2008) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-008-0559-5 · Cited by 427
Cited by
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s014 · Cited by 4,572
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s011 · Cited by 4,369
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012
(2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-s011 · Cited by 2,240
European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women
on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Kanis, J. A., Cooper, C., Rizzoli, R., & Reginster, J.-Y. (2019) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 · Cited by 1,900
Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Diab, D. L., Eldeiry, L. S., Farooki, A., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kelly, J., Lewiecki, E. M., et al. (2020) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/gl-2020-0524suppl · Cited by 1,182
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
- 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.