期刊文献+

骨折风险评估工具FRAX对藏族患者临床应用价值的探讨 被引量:10

The clinic value of FRAX in Tibetans patients
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的对行DXA检查的藏族、汉族患者同时行FRAX骨折风险预测评估,比较DXA检查提示骨质疏松检出率及FRAX评估提示高骨折风险率在藏汉两族患者间检出的差异;探讨FRAX骨折风险预测工具应用于藏族骨质疏松患者的临床价值。方法选取2017年9~10月到我院骨密度室行DXA检查的患者252例(藏族128例,汉族124例),对上述患者进行FRAX评估,估算其未来10年主要部位骨折风险、髋部骨折风险(使用中国香港测评系统, https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/)。采用SPSS 19.0统计软件,正态性分布的计量资料以均数±标准差表示,非正态分布计量以中位数和四分间距位表示。组间比较独立样本t检验;诊断能力的评价指标用敏感性、特异性、Youden index表示。结果藏族患者平均DXA T/Z值水平高于汉族,但二者髋部骨折风险、主要部位骨折风险均无明显区别。藏族患者FRAX未来10年髋部主要骨折风险≥3%为治疗阈值时Youden index=0.4465。以主要部位骨折概率≥20%作为诊断标准时在藏族患者中敏感性为16.67%,在汉族患者中敏感性为12.5%,以髋部骨折风险概率≥3%,在藏族患者中敏感性为55.56%,在汉族患者中敏感性为37.5%。FRAX在评估藏族、汉族患者髋部及主要骨折部位骨折风险时,以主要部位骨折概率≥20%作为诊断标准,在藏、汉两族患者中特异性均为100%。以髋部骨折风险概率≥3%,在藏族患者中特异性为89.09%,在汉族患者中特异性为92%。结论 FRAX对于藏族患者骨折风险有较好的评估效能,使用未来10年髋部主要骨折风险≥3%为治疗阈值有较高的临床价值。在部分贫困藏区,当临床医生通过FRAX评估出高骨折风险(FRAX-M≥20%,FRAX-H≥3%)时,建议积极将患者转诊至上级医院进行及时诊疗。 Objective Based on BMD measured using DXA and 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture estimated using FRAX,to compare the differences in the detection of osteoporosis by DXA and high fracture risk by FRAX between Tibetans and Han Chinese patients,and to discuss whether FRAX has good clinic value in Tibetans patients.Methods FRAX questionnaires were distributed to 252 subjects(124 Han Chinese and 128 Tibetan patients)who underwent DXA from September to October 2017 at Hospital of Chengdu Office of People’s Government of Tibetan.We used FRAX calculation tool of Hong Kong to predict their 10-year fracture risk(http://www.shefgield.ac.uk/FRAX/).SPSS19.0 was used for the statistical analysis,normal distribution data are showed as mean and standard deviation,data not of normal distribution were represented by median and interquartile range,and t test was used for the comparison of independent samples between groups.Sensitivity,specificity and Youden index were calculated to assess the diagnostic efficiency.Results The average DXA T/Z scores of Tibetan patients was higher than Han Chinese patients,however there was no significant difference in the probability of osteoporotic fracture between them.When the 10-year probability of hip fracture≥3% was used as the threshold of clinical treatment in Tibetans patients,Youden index=0.4465.When the 10-year probability of major fracture≥20% was used as the threshold of clinical treatment,the sensitivity of was 16.67% for Tibetans and 12.5% for Han Chinese patients.When the 10-year probability of hip fracture≥3% was used as the threshold of clinical treatment,the sensitivity of was 55.56% for Tibetans and 37.5% for Han Chinese patients.When the 10-year probability of major fracture≥20% was used as the threshold of clinical treatment,the specificity was 100% for both Tibetans and Han Chinese patients.When the 10-year probability of hip fracture≥3% was used as the threshold of clinical treatment,the specificity of was 89.09% for Tibetans and 92% for Han Chinese patients.Conclusion FRAX is a useful clinical tool in evaluating fracture risk for Tibetans patients,especially when we use the 10-year probability of hip fracture≥3% as the treatment threshold.A patient who live in disadvantaged parts in Tibetan area with a high risk of fracture(FRAX-M≥20% or FRAX-H≥3%)should be referred to a superior hospital for timely diagnosis and treatment.
作者 黄伦浪 王玲 王溯源 尹伟婧 孙曾梅 李明霞 邬云红 郭彦宏 HUANG Lunlang;WANG Lin;WANG Suyuan;YIN Weijing;SUN Zengmei;LI Mingxia;WU Yunhong;GUO Yanhong(Department of Endocrinology,Hospital of Chengdu Office of People’s Government of Tibetan Autonomous Region,Chengdu 610000,China)
出处 《中国骨质疏松杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2019年第1期85-88,共4页 Chinese Journal of Osteoporosis
关键词 FRAX 骨折风险 藏族 骨质疏松 FRAX fracture risk Tibetans osteoporosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献77

  • 1张清学,杨冬梓,王文军,梁晓余,谢梅青,王良岸,邝健全,蒋宁一,洪顺家,郑澄宇,孙艳梅,陈晓丽,古少君.中老年女性骨密度相关因素的临床分析[J].中国骨质疏松杂志,2005,11(1):68-70. 被引量:12
  • 2Shuler FD, Conjeski J. Defining bone health and fracture risk in West Virginia: the World Health Organization FRAX assessment tool. W V MedJ, 2011,107(5) :12-17.
  • 3Jorge Morales-Torres, Patrieia Clark, Margarita Deleze-Hinojosa, et al. Fracture risk assessment in Latin America: is Frax an adaptable instrument for the region? Clin Rheumatol,2010, 29 : 1085-1091.
  • 4Florence Tremollieres, Tiffany Cochet, Clementine Cohade, et al. Fracture risk in early postmenopausal women assessed using FRAX, Joint Bone Spine, 77 (2010) 345-348.
  • 5Eugene V. McCloskey, Neil Binkley, FRAX_clinical task force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & international osteoporosis foundation position development conference. Journal of Clinical Densitometry: Assessment of Skeletal Health, 2011,14(3) : 181-183.
  • 6Nelson B. Watts. The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX ) : Applications in clinical practice. Journal of Women' s Health, April 2011, 20(4) : 525-531.
  • 7Kenneth E. Izuora, Naomi Alazraki, Johnita Byrd-Sellers,et al. Fracture assessment tool risk scores in bone density reports do notchange physician prescribing behavior for osteoporosis. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 2011,342 ( 1 ) : 5-8.
  • 8W D Leslie, S. R. Majumdar, L M Lix, et al. High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis : implications for clinical practice, Osteoporos Int,2012, 23:391-397.
  • 9N J Crabtree, N A Bebhington, D M Chapman, et al. Impact of UK National Guidelines based on FRAX-comparison with current clinical practice, Clinical Endocrinology, 2010,73 : 452- 456.
  • 10William D Leslie, Christopher S Kovacs, Wojciech P Olszynski, et al. Spine-hip T-score difference predicts major osteoporotic fracture risk independent of FRAX: A Population-based report from CAMOS. Journal of Clinical Densitometry: Assessment of Skeletal Health, 2011,14 ( 3 ) : 286-293.

共引文献1410

同被引文献98

引证文献10

二级引证文献49

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部