The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate two new fracture risk algorithms (QFractureScores) for estimating the individual risk of osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture over 10 years. DESIGN: Prospective open cohort study with routinely collected data from 357 general practices to develop the scores and from 178 practices to validate the scores. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1 183 663 women and 1 174 232 men aged 30-85 in the derivation cohort, who contributed 7 898 208 and 8 049 306 person years of observation, respectively. There were 24 350 incident diagnoses of osteoporotic fracture in women and 7934 in men, and 9302 incident diagnoses of hip fracture in women and 5424 in men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First (incident) diagnosis of osteoporotic fracture (vertebral, distal radius, or hip) and incident hip fracture recorded in general practice records. RESULTS: Use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, recorded alcohol use, parental history of osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, asthma, tricyclic antidepressants, corticosteroids, history of falls, menopausal symptoms, chronic liver disease, gastrointestinal malabsorption, and other endocrine disorders were significantly and independently associated with risk of osteoporotic fracture in women. Some variables were significantly associated with risk of osteoporotic fracture but not with risk of hip fracture. The predictors for men for osteoporotic and hip fracture were age, BMI, smoking status, recorded alcohol use, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, asthma, tricyclic antidepressants, corticosteroids, history of falls, and liver disease. The hip fracture algorithm had the best performance among men and women. It explained 63.94% of the variation in women and 63.19% of the variation in men. The D statistic values for discrimination were highest for hip fracture in women (2.73) and men (2.68) and were over twice the magnitude of the corresponding values for osteoporotic fracture. The ROC statistics for hip fracture were also high: 0.89 in women and 0.86 for men versus 0.79 and 0.69, respectively, for the osteoporotic fracture outcome. The algorithms were well calibrated with predicted risks closely matching observed risks. The QFractureScore for hip fracture also had good performance for discrimination and calibration compared with the FRAX (fracture risk assessment) algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: These new algorithms can predict risk of fracture in primary care populations in the UK without laboratory measurements and are therefore suitable for use in both clinical settings and for self assessment (www.qfracture.org). QFractureScores could be used to identify patients at high risk of fracture who might benefit from interventions to reduce their risk.
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
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321 · Cited by 15,889
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.
Benson, K., & Hartz, A. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422506 · Cited by 2,347
Multiple Imputation of Missing Values
Royston, P. (2004) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0400400301 · Cited by 2,340
Effect of Risedronate on the Risk of Hip Fracture in Elderly Women
McClung, M. R., Geusens, P., Miller, P. D., Zippel, H., Bensen, W. G., Roux, C., Adami, S., Fogelman, I., Diamond, T., Eastell, R., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200102013440503 · Cited by 1,918
Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: A meta-analysis
De Laet, C., Kanis, J. A., Odén, A., Johanson, H., Johnell, O., Delmas, P., Eisman, J. A., Kroger, H., Fujiwara, S., Garnero, P., et al. (2005) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-005-1863-y · Cited by 1,622
Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2
Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., Minhas, R., Sheikh, A., & Brindle, P. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25 · Cited by 1,459
Self-citationActive Smoking and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Willi, C., Bodenmann, P., Ghali, W. A., Faris, P. D., & Cornuz, J. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.22.2654 · Cited by 1,268
Use of oral corticosteroids and risk of fractures
Van Staa, T. P., Leufkens, H. G. M., Abenhaim, L., Zhang, B., & Cooper, C. (2000) · Journal of Bone and Mineral Research · doi:10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.6.993 · Cited by 1,263
The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology
Royston, P., Ambler, G., & Sauerbrei, W. (1999) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964 · Cited by 1,066
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
A new measure of prognostic separation in survival data
Royston, P., & Sauerbrei, W. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1621 · Cited by 450 · cited 1×
“and compared these by 10th of predicted risk. The observed risk at 10 years was obtained by using the 10 year Kaplan-Meier estimate. We calculated the D statistic (a measure of discrimination where higher values indicate better discrimination)”
MethodImplications 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
Fracture risk associated with smoking: a meta‐analysis
Vestergaard, P., & Mosekilde, L. (2003) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2003.01232.x · Cited by 179
Risk of hip fracture in patients with a history of schizophrenia
Howard, L., Kirkwood, G., & Leese, M. (2007) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.023671 · Cited by 158
Cited by
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
Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., & Brindle, P. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j2099 · Cited by 1,703
Self-citationGoldstein, B. A., Navar, A. M., Pencina, M. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw042 · Cited by 936
UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis
Gregson, C. L., Armstrong, D. J., Bowden, J., Cooper, C., Edwards, J., Gittoes, N. J. L., Harvey, N., Kanis, J., Leyland, S., Low, R., et al. (2022) · Archives of Osteoporosis · doi:10.1007/s11657-022-01061-5 · Cited by 593
The effects of smoking on bone metabolism
Yoon, V., Maalouf, N. M., & Sakhaee, K. (2012) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-012-1940-y · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Hippisley-Cox, J., & Coupland, C.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2009-11-19
- Volume
- 339
- Issue
- nov19 1
- Pages
- b4229-b4229
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2150014095
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 39.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.