The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk Factors for Fractures of the Distal Forearm and Proximal Humerus
Abstract
The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures is a prospective cohort study begun in 1986 that includes 9,704 women aged 65 years and older from Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. A total of 171 women suffered fractures of the distal forearm, and 79 women had fractures of the proximal humerus during the first 2.2 years of follow-up. Most fractures at both sites occurred as a result of a fall. Low bone mineral density was a strong predictor of these fractures; comparing those in the lowest quintile of bone mineral density in the distal radius with those in the highest quintile, the rate ratio was 4.1 for fractures of the distal forearm and 7.5 for fractures of the proximal humerus. Other factors associated with an increased rate of distal forearm fracture independently of low bone mineral density included poor visual acuity, number of falls in the year before baseline, and frequent walking. Factors that appeared to be independently associated with an increased rate of fracture of the proximal humerus included a recent decline in health status, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, infrequent walking, and several indicators of neuromuscular weakness such as inability to stand with feet in a tandem position for more than a few seconds. These data support the hypothesis that distal forearm fractures often occur as a result of a fall in women with low bone mineral density who are relatively healthy and active and have good neuromuscular function, while fractures of the proximal humerus tend to occur as a result of a fall in women with low bone mineral density who are less healthy and less active than average and who have poor neuromuscular function.
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
Cited by
Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures
Cummings, S. R., & Melton, L. J. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08657-9 · Cited by 3,821
Self-citationMarshall, D., Johnell, O., & Wedel, H. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1254 · Cited by 3,709
Schuit, S. C. E., van der Klift, M., Weel, A. E. A. M., de Laet, C. E. D. H., Burger, H., Seeman, E., Hofman, A., Uitterlinden, A. G., van Leeuwen, J. P. T. M., & Pols, H. A. P. (2004) · Bone · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2003.10.001 · Cited by 1,651
Weaver, C. M., Gordon, C. M., Janz, K. F., Kalkwarf, H. J., Lappe, J. M., Lewis, R., O’Karma, M., Wallace, T. C., & Zemel, B. S. (2016) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3440-3 · Cited by 1,378
Mechanisms of diabetes mellitus-induced bone fragility
On behalf of the IOF Bone and Diabetes Working Group, Napoli, N., Chandran, M., Pierroz, D. D., Abrahamsen, B., Schwartz, A. V., & Ferrari, S. L. (2017) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2016.153 · Cited by 1,107
Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis
Kanis, J. A., Johnell, O., Oden, A., Johansson, H., De Laet, C., Eisman, J. A., Fujiwara, S., Kroger, H., McCloskey, E. V., Mellstrom, D., et al. (2005) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1640-3 · Cited by 999
Guidelines for improving the care of the older person with diabetes mellitus
California Healthcare Foundation/American Geriatrics Society, C. (2003) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.51.5s.1.x · Cited by 651
Epidemiology of fracture risk with advancing age
Ensrud, K. E. (2013) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/glt092 · Cited by 456
Development, feasibility and performance of a health risk appraisal questionnaire for older persons
Stuck, A. E., Kharicha, K., Dapp, U., Anders, J., von Renteln-Kruse, W., Meier-Baumgartner, H. P., Harari, D., Swift, C. G., Ivanova, K., Egger, M., et al. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-1 · Cited by 324
Risk factors for fractures of the proximal humerus: results from the EPIDOS prospective study
Lee, S. H., Dargent-Molina, P., & Bréart, G. (2002) · Journal of Bone and Mineral Research · doi:10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.5.817 · Cited by 251
Risk factors for incident vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study
van der Klift, M., de Laet, C. E., McCloskey, E. V., Johnell, O., Kanis, J. A., Hofman, A., & Pols, H. A. (2004) · Journal of Bone and Mineral Research · doi:10.1359/jbmr.040215 · Cited by 197
Risks of perimenopausal fractures–a prospective population-based study
Tuppurainen, M., Kroger, H., Honkanen, R., Puntila, E., Huopio, J., Saarikoski, S., & Alhava, E. (1995) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.3109/00016349509013475 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelsey, J. L., Browner, W. S., Seeley, D. G., Nevitt, M. C., & Cummings, S. R.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-03-01
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 477-489
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2262137444
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.71
- 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.
