Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Sep;22(9):2395-411.
doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1713-z. Epub 2011 Jul 21.

Interpretation and Use of FRAX in Clinical Practice

Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Interpretation and Use of FRAX in Clinical Practice

J A Kanis et al. Osteoporos Int. .

Abstract

The introduction of the WHO FRAX® algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. Its use in fracture risk prediction has strengths, but also limitations of which the clinician should be aware and are the focus of this review

Introduction: The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) appointed a joint Task Force to develop resource documents in order to make recommendations on how to improve FRAX and better inform clinicians who use FRAX. The Task Force met in November 2010 for 3 days to discuss these topics which form the focus of this review.

Methods: This study reviews the resource documents and joint position statements of ISCD and IOF.

Results: Details on the clinical risk factors currently used in FRAX are provided, and the reasons for the exclusion of others are provided. Recommendations are made for the development of surrogate models where country-specific FRAX models are not available.

Conclusions: The wish list of clinicians for the modulation of FRAX is large, but in many instances, these wishes cannot presently be fulfilled; however, an explanation and understanding of the reasons may be helpful in translating the information provided by FRAX into clinical practice.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 139 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Osteoporos Int. 2009 Dec;20(12):2055-61 - PubMed
    1. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993 Oct;64(5):543-8 - PubMed
    1. Eur Respir J. 2009 May;33(5):1018-24 - PubMed
    1. CMAJ. 2010 Nov 23;182(17):1864-73 - PubMed
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1193-202 - PubMed

Publication types

Feedback