Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 569

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Underdiagnosis of Vertebral Fractures Is a Worldwide Problem: The IMPACT Study

Open access
Delmas, Pierre D, van de Langerijt, Lex, Watts, Nelson B, Eastell, Richard, Genant, Harry, Grauer, Andreas, Cahall, David L·2005·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Accurate radiographic diagnosis of vertebral fractures is important. This multicenter, multinational study assessed radiographic diagnoses of vertebral fracture in 2451 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Comparison between local and central readings yielded a false-negative rate of 34%. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fracture is a worldwide problem. Introduction: Vertebral fractures are the most common complication of osteoporosis. Although they are associated with significant morbidity, they frequently do not come to clinical attention. Accurate radiographic diagnosis is important. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter, multinational prospective study (the IMPACT trial), the accuracy of radiographic diagnosis of vertebral fracture was evaluated in postmenopausal women 65–80 years of age newly diagnosed with osteoporosis (based on BMD measurement). Lateral radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine were evaluated for identification of vertebral fractures, first locally and subsequently at a central reading center, using a validated semiquantitative method. False-positive and false-negative rates were calculated based on adjudicated discrepancies between the initial interpretation at the local site and the subsequent central reading, considered the “reference standard.” Results: Of 2451 women with an evaluable radiograph both centrally and locally, 789 (32%) had at least one vertebral fracture. Adjudicated discrepancies (n = 350 patients) between local and central readings because of undetected vertebral fracture (68%) or equivocal terminology in the local radiology report (32%) yielded a false-negative rate of 34%. Conclusions: Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures was observed in all geographic regions (false-negative rates: North America, 45.2%; Latin America, 46.5%; Europe/South Africa/Australia, 29.5%). The false-positive rate was 5% globally. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fracture is a worldwide problem attributable in part to a lack of radiographic detection, use of ambiguous terminology in the radiology report, or both. Efforts to improve accuracy and reduce variability in terminology and interpretation may increase the effectiveness of spinal radiography for detecting vertebral fractures in patients with osteoporosis.

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 · 10.1359/jbmr.041214

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 569

Metadata

Authors
Delmas, P. D., van de Langerijt, L., Watts, N. B., Eastell, R., Genant, H., Grauer, A., & Cahall, D. L.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2005-04-01
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
557-563
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W1963491484
Cited by
569
References
1
FWCI
20.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Underdiagnosis of Vertebral Fractures Is a Worldwide Problem: The IMPACT Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1359/jbmr.041214
The paper
Delmas, P. D., van de Langerijt, L., Watts, N. B., Eastell, R., Genant, H., Grauer, A., & Cahall, D. L. (2005). Underdiagnosis of Vertebral Fractures Is a Worldwide Problem: The IMPACT Study. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.041214

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.