Cited by 51Bone health and osteoporosis researchStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyHip and Femur Fractures

Fracture Risk Assessment: State of the Art, Methodologically Unsound, or Poorly Reported?

Collins, Gary S., Michaëlsson, Karl·2012·Current Osteoporosis Reports

Abstract

Osteoporotic fractures, including hip fractures, are a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality as well as a major economic burden. Identifying individuals who are at an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture is an important challenge to be resolved. Recently, multivariable prediction tools have been developed to assist clinicians in the management of their patients by calculating their 10-year risk of fracture (FRAX, QFracture, Garvan) using a combination of known risk factors. These prediction models have revolutionized the way clinicians assess the risk of fracture. Studies evaluating the performance of prediction models in this and other areas of medicine have, however, been characterized by poor design, methodological conduct, and reporting. We examine recently developed fracture prediction models and critically discuss issues in their design, validation, and transparency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11914-012-0108-1

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collins, G. S., & Michaëlsson, K.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Venue
Current Osteoporosis Reports
Published
2012-06-12
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
199-207
ISSN
  • 1544-1873 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-2241
OpenAlex
W1990083361
Cited by
51
References
104
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8
FWCI
10.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Osteoporosis Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip and Femur Fractures
Keywords
fracture risk assessment, osteoporotic fractures, hip fracture, FRAX, QFracture, fracture prediction model, model validation, risk factor selection, model transparency, reporting quality, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Hip Fractures, Humans, Prognosis, Review Literature as Topic, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment, Validation Studies as Topic, Osteoporotic Fractures

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