Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,211

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification and Fracture Outcomes of Undiagnosed Low Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: Results From the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment

Siris, Ethel S., Miller, Paul D., Barrett-Connor, Elizabeth, Faulkner, Kenneth G., Wehren, Lois E., Abbott, Thomas A., Berger, Marc L., Santora, Arthur C., Sherwood, Louis M.·2001·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Large segments of the population at risk for osteoporosis and fracture have not been evaluated, and the usefulness of peripheral measurements for short-term prediction of fracture risk is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To describe the occurrence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women, its risk factors, and fracture incidence during short-term follow-up. DESIGN: The National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment, a longitudinal observational study initiated September 1997 to March 1999, with approximately 12 months of subsequent follow-up. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 200 160 ambulatory postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older with no previous osteoporosis diagnosis, derived from 4236 primary care practices in 34 states. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline BMD T scores, obtained from peripheral bone densitometry performed at the heel, finger, or forearm; risk factors for low BMD, derived from questionnaire responses; and clinical fracture rates at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Using World Health Organization criteria, 39.6% had osteopenia (T score of -1 to -2.49) and 7.2% had osteoporosis (T score </=-2.5). Age, personal or family history of fracture, Asian or Hispanic heritage, smoking, and cortisone use were associated with significantly increased likelihood of osteoporosis; higher body mass index, African American heritage, estrogen or diuretic use, exercise, and alcohol consumption significantly decreased the likelihood. Among the 163 979 participants with follow-up information, osteoporosis was associated with a fracture rate approximately 4 times that of normal BMD (rate ratio, 4.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.59-4.53) and osteopenia was associated with a 1.8-fold higher rate (95% CI, 1.49-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of this population had previously undetected low BMD, including 7% with osteoporosis. Peripheral BMD results were highly predictive of fracture risk. Given the economic and social costs of osteoporotic fractures, strategies to identify and manage osteoporosis in the primary care setting need to be established and implemented.

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.286.22.2815

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 1,211

Metadata

Authors
Siris, E. S., Miller, P. D., Barrett-Connor, E., Faulkner, K. G., Wehren, L. E., Abbott, T. A., Berger, M. L., Santora, A. C., & Sherwood, L. M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-12-12
Volume
286
Issue
22
Pages
2815
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2153579902
Cited by
1,211
References
2
FWCI
64.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.