SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.3 issue2Psychosocial, sociodemographic, cultural and family factors associated with Irritable Bowel SyndromeSwine flu vaccination campaign: Opinion on immunization among doctors author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Revista Clínica de Medicina de Familia

On-line version ISSN 2386-8201Print version ISSN 1699-695X


ESTEBANEZ SECO, Santiago et al. Applicability of FRAX® tool in osteoporotic patients. Rev Clin Med Fam [online]. 2010, vol.3, n.2, pp.83-87. ISSN 2386-8201.

Aim. To describe the characteristics of the patients treated for osteoporosis that could not been treated according to FRAX® scores. Design. Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. Setting. Primary Care - Toledo Speciality Centre. Participants. Outpatients with osteoporosis diagnosis treated with antirresortive, osteogenic or mixed drugs and visited in Rheumatology Service (Bone Metabolism) in april-may 2009. Intervention. Clinical charts review extracting the data from the antiosteoporotic treatment starting date, and applying the FRAX® risk index with and without bone densitometry (in that patients with it). Measurements and results. 99 patients (88.9% women), medium age (± standard deviation) 62.3 ± 9.33 years old. 62.6% had a FRAX® index <20%/3%; these patients were younger (58.95 vs. 67.92 years old) than those with a FRAX® ≥20%/3%, with neither gender nor BMI differences. "FRAX® (-)" patients had less previous fractures (33.9% vs. 83.8%; p<0.001), specially from spine and humerus; these patients also had a smaller fracture number (0.55 vs. 1.75; p<0.001), and their fractures were produced at a younger age (54.88 vs. 63% years old; p=0.02). Also, their T-score of hip was bigger (-1.87 vs. -2.50; p<0.001). The 10-year probability of fracture was smaller in the "FRAX® (-)" patients without densitometry (4.18% vs. 12.72% in major osteoporotic fracture; p<0.001; 0.91% vs. 5.43% in hip fracture; p<0.001) and with it (4.70% vs. 14.30% in major osteoporotic fracture; p<0.001; 1.14% vs. 6.62% in hip fracture; p<0.01). Bone densitometry does not significantly affect the percentage of patients that surpass the 20%/3% limit. Conclusions. The FRAX® tool can be relatively useful in Primary Care, specially in those patients without densitometry or established osteoporosis. However, the NOF cost-effectivity criteria can not be adopted directly in our environment.

Keywords : Primary Health Care; Osteoporosis; Efficiency.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License