Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
CMAJ Open ; 9(2): E711-E717, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34162663

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In Canada, decisions regarding osteoporosis pharmacotherapy are based on estimated 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We aimed to determine how frequently 2 common approaches (Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada [CAROC] tool and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) produced different estimates and to seek possible explanations for differences. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional chart review at a tertiary osteoporosis centre (Dr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre in Calgary). Included patients were women referred for consideration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy who attended a consultation between 2016 and 2019 and whose charts contained 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk estimates using both the CAROC tool (based on bone mineral density [BMD] results) and FRAX (based on BMD results and clinically assessed fracture risk factors). Risk estimates provided on BMD reports (calculated with CAROC) and generated through osteoporosis clinic consultation (calculated with FRAX, including BMD) were categorized as low (< 10.0%), moderate (10.0%-19.9%) or high (≥ 20.0%). Estimates were considered discordant when they placed the patient in different risk categories. RESULTS: Of 190 patients evaluated, 99 (52.1%) had discordant risk estimates. Although a similar proportion were considered high risk by BMD reports using the CAROC tool (17.9%) and clinic charts using FRAX (19.5%), the 2 methods identified different patients as being high risk. Around the crucial high-risk (20.0%) treatment threshold, discordance was present in 37 patients (19.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5%-25.7%); discordance around the moderate-risk (10.0%) threshold was present in 69 (36.3%, 95% CI 29.5%-43.2%) patients. Disagreement regarding fracture history between BMD reports and clinic charts was observed in 19.8% of patients. INTERPRETATION: Fracture risk estimates on BMD reports (using the CAROC tool) and those calculated in the clinical setting (using FRAX) frequently result in different risk classification. Osteoporosis treatment decisions may differ in up to half of patients depending on which estimate is used, highlighting the need for a consistent and accurate assessment process for fracture risk.


Assuntos
Osteoporose , Fraturas por Osteoporose , Sistemas de Informação em Radiologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Medição de Risco , Alberta/epidemiologia , Densidade Óssea , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Estudos Transversais , Tratamento Farmacológico/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Osteoporose/complicações , Osteoporose/tratamento farmacológico , Osteoporose/epidemiologia , Fraturas por Osteoporose/diagnóstico , Fraturas por Osteoporose/epidemiologia , Fraturas por Osteoporose/prevenção & controle , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Seleção de Pacientes , Medição de Risco/métodos , Medição de Risco/normas , Medição de Risco/estatística & dados numéricos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...