Utilizing the SOF data, we were able to perform an analysis comparing the 10-year incidence rates of each of the four Vistusertib in vitro fracture types to the 10-year incidence of any one of the four and thus were able to calculate a discount rate, albeit only for older women. Comparing the two results, we derived the discount percentages shown in Table 5. For Malmo data, the ratio of the incidence of any of the four to the sum of the four varies from 0.87 (13% over counting using the “sum”) in age group 50–54 to 0.74 (26% over counting) in age group 75–79 years. The Malmo estimates are based on statistical models, but the empirical comparison of annual risk from SOF (Table 5)
shows similar “discounts” selleck screening library for over counting of 9–18% among women over age 65 years. Based on these two data sources, in order to estimate the annual risk for any of the four fractures that is adjusted for overlap, the sum of the four should be discounted by 10% in those under
65, 15% in those 65–74, and 20% in those age 75 years and over. We applied this discount to derive annual 4 fracture incidence rates (both for current and revised incidence sums), which are delineated in Table 2 and Fig. 1a and b. Table 5 Comparison of results obtained from calculating risk of any one of four major osteoporotic fractures among postmenopausal white women by either summing rates of four individual Erismodegib in vivo types of fracture or by measuring the risk of any one of the four types, comparing data from Malmo, Sweden, with prospective data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) Malmo 10-year risk during [32] SOF 10-year riska Age Any of 4 Sum of 4 Ratio of “any” to sum (and implied discount
to sum) Age Any of 4 Sum of 4 Ratio of “any” to sum (and implied discount to sum) 50 6.0 6.9 0.87 (13%) 55 7.8 9.0 0.87 (13%) 60 10.6 12.9 0.82 (18%) 65 14.3 18.1 0.79 (21%) 65–69 12.9 14.29 0.91 (9%) 70 18.9 24.8 0.76 (24%) 70–74 17.3 20.13 0.86 (14%) 75 22.9 30.8 0.74 (26%) 75–79 24.24 27.54 0.88 (12%) 80 26.5 35.3 0.75 (25%) 80–84 26.45 32.16 0.82 (18%) 85 27.0 35.2 0.77 (24%) ≥85 34.53 38.74 0.89 (11%) 90 21.4 27.5 0.78 (22%) Discount is the estimated decrease in the sum of the four due to overlap in individuals suffering more than one type of fracture aStudy of Osteoporotic Fractures: unpublished data Mortality rates The FRAX® model also requires age-specific mortality rates. Mortality data are important because the risk of death competes with the risk of fracture. Increased life expectancy in the years since WHO last incorporated death rates would have the effect of increasing estimated 10-year fracture likelihood, particularly among older age groups. US-FRAX used age-, sex-, and race-specific death rates for the US population in 2001 [27], but final mortality rates for 2004 are now available [28].
Related posts:
- e , maintained a medical possession ratio to initiated therapy of
- However, Silverman does note that it is routine during analysis o
- Between treatment difference in the cumulative incidence of each category of fracture
- Therefore, a part of vertebral fractures identified after 6 month
- Analysis of data more accurately