4.0 Article

Prediction Models of Prevalent Radiographic Vertebral Fractures Among Older Men

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 449-457

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2013.09.020

Keywords

Bone densitometry; model discrimination; prediction models; prevalent vertebral fracture; vertebral fracture assessment

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
  3. National Institute on Aging
  4. National Center for Research Resources
  5. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research [U01 AR45580, U01 AR45614, U01 AR45632, U01 AR45647, U01 AR45654, U01 AR45583, U01 AG18197, U01-AG027810, UL1 TR000128]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

No studies have compared how well different prediction models discriminate older men who have a radiographic prevalent vertebral fracture (PVFx) from those who do not. We used area under receiver operating characteristic curves and a net reclassification index to compare how well regression-derived prediction models and nonregression prediction tools identify PVFx among men age >= 65 yr with femoral neck T-score of -1.0 or less enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. The area under receiver operating characteristic for a model with age, bone mineral density, and historical height loss (HHL) was 0.682 compared with 0.692 for a complex model with age, bone mineral density, HHL, prior non-spine fracture, body mass index, back pain, grip strength, smoking, and glucocorticoid use (p values for difference in 5 bootstrapped samples 0.14-0.92). This complex model, using a cutpoint prevalence of 5%, correctly reclassified only a net 5.7% (p = 0.13) of men as having or not having a PVFx compared with a simple criteria list (age >= 80 yr, HHL > 4 cm, or glucocorticoid use). In conclusion, simple criteria identify older men with PVFx and regression-based models. Future research to identify additional risk factors that more accurately identify older men with PVFx is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available