Quality of fracture risk assessment in post-fracture care in Ontario, Canada.

Osteoporos Int

Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Canada.

Published: March 2013

AI Article Synopsis

  • Accurate fracture risk assessments on bone mineral density (BMD) reports are critical for treatment decisions, yet over 50% of reports for Ontarians with fracture histories underestimate risk.
  • A study analyzing 48 BMD reports from 2008 found poor agreement between reported and actual fracture risks, with a weighted kappa score of 0.21 indicating "poor to fair" accuracy.
  • Misclassification of fracture risk could lead to inappropriate treatment recommendations, as more than 30% of reports underestimated "low" risks and over 20% underestimated "moderate" risks.

Article Abstract

Unlabelled: As fracture risk assessment is a basis for treatment decisions, accurate risk assessments on bone mineral density (BMD) reports are important. Over 50 % of sampled BMD reports for Ontarians with fracture histories underestimated fracture risk by a single category. Risk assessments in Ontario may not accurately inform treatment recommendations.

Introduction: The shifting emphasis on fracture risk assessment as a basis for treatment recommendations highlights the importance of ensuring that accurate fracture risk assessments are present on reading specialists' BMD reports. This study seeks to determine the accuracy of fracture risk assessments on a sample of BMD reports from 2008 for individuals with a history of fracture and produced by a broad cross section of Ontario's imaging laboratories.

Methods: Forty-eight BMD reports for individuals with documented history of fragility fracture were collected as part of a cluster randomized trial. To compute fracture risk, risk factors, and BMD T-scores from reports were abstracted using a standardized template and compared to the assessments on the reports. Cohen's kappa was used to score agreement between the research team and the reading specialists.

Results: The weighted kappa was 0.21, indicating agreement to be at the margin of "poor to fair." More than 50 % of the time, reported fracture risks did not reflect fracture history and were therefore underestimated by a single category. Over 30 % of the reports containing a "low" fracture risk assessment were assessed as "moderate" fracture risk by the research team, given fracture history. Over 20 % of the reports with a "moderate" fracture risk were assessed as "high" by the research team, given fracture history.

Conclusions: This study highlights the high prevalence of fracture risk assessments that are underestimated. This has implications in terms of fracture risk categorization that can negatively affect subsequent follow-up care and treatment recommendations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572386PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2111-xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fracture risk
48
risk assessments
20
bmd reports
20
fracture
18
risk assessment
16
risk
15
reports
9
assessment basis
8
basis treatment
8
single category
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!