Previous Issue
Volume 5, September
 
 

Osteology, Volume 5, Issue 4 (December 2025) – 1 article

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
15 pages, 1438 KB  
Article
Discrepancy Between the 10-Year Probability of Major Osteoporotic Fracture with FRAX and the Actual Fracture Prevalence over 10 Years in Japanese
by Ichiro Yoshii, Naoya Sawada and Tatsumi Chijiwa
Osteology 2025, 5(4), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology5040028 - 25 Sep 2025
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Comparison between the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) calculated with FRAX (pFRAX) and the actual MOF rate was conducted, and the availability of pFRAX was evaluated with a one-center cohort study. Methods: Eligible patients were followed up for [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Comparison between the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) calculated with FRAX (pFRAX) and the actual MOF rate was conducted, and the availability of pFRAX was evaluated with a one-center cohort study. Methods: Eligible patients were followed up for 10 years. Risk factors listed as items in the FRAX, and presence of lifestyle-related diseases (LS-RDs), escalated ability to fall (Fall-ability), cognitive impairment (CI), etc., were evaluated concerning MOF. The 10-year probability and actual MOF rate were compared. Risk factors contributing to the discrepancy between the probability and the actual rate were evaluated after dividing subgroups. Results: The study included 931 patients. Factors that contributed to the significantly higher ratio for incident MOF besides items in the FRAX were LS-RD, Fall-ability, CI, and anti-osteoporotic drug intervention. The higher the number of factors presented, the higher the actual MOF prevalence compared to the probability rise. Presenting LS-RD, Fall-ability, and CI are independent of the items in the FRAX. pFRAX was overestimated in the low-risk groups and underestimated in the high-risk group compared to the actual MOF rate. These phenomena are caused by the lack of consideration of these three comorbidity risks. Conclusions: A discrepancy between pFRAX and the actual MOF rate exists. LS-RD, Fall-ability, and CI should be listed in the items of the FRAX for more concision. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Previous Issue
Back to TopTop