Published Online:

In this study, we reported the 5- and 10-year absolute risk of fracture associated with our previously reported fracture risk score.


To report the 5- and 10-year absolute risk of fracture associated with the previously reported fracture risk (FRISK) score.

Materials and Methods

All participants gave written, informed consent, and the Barwon Health Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study. An age-stratified population-based sample of women aged 60 years and older (n = 600) was recruited during 1994–1996. FRISK scores of 0–10 incorporating bone mineral density (BMD) at two sites (hip and spine), falls scores in the previous 12 months of 1–4, weight, and number of fractures as an adult were calculated. Fractures of the hip, spine, humerus, and wrist were ascertained during a median follow-up period of 9.6 years (interquartile range, 6.6–10.5). The cumulative probability of fracture at 5 and 10 years after baseline measurements was calculated by using actuarial methods. The utility of this model was compared with other FRISK algorithms, including the World Health Organization FRISK assessment tool FRAX designed for United Kingdom and that designed for the United States and the Garvan nomogram (Australia).


This study supplies the 5- and 10-year absolute risk of fracture associated with all levels of the FRISK score. While there are modest differences in absolute risk of fracture seen for different numbers of prior fractures, the more marked differences occur across the different categories of falls scores and different categories of BMD. The receiver operating characteristic curves showed no significant difference in area under the curve for all four absolute risk of fracture algorithms.


Absolute risk of fracture can be determined by using readily obtainable clinical information that may aid treatment decisions.

© RSNA, 2011


  • 1 Tucker G, Metcalfe A, Pearce Cet al.. The importance of calculating absolute rather than relative fracture risk. Bone 2007;41(6):937–941. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nguyen ND, Frost SA, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV. Development of prognostic nomograms for individualizing 5-year and 10-year fracture risks. Osteoporos Int 2008;19(10):1431–1444. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Siris E, Delmas PD. Assessment of 10-year absolute fracture risk: a new paradigm with worldwide application. Osteoporos Int 2008;19(4):383–384. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barratt A, Wyer PC, Hatala Ret al.. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine. I. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. CMAJ 2004;171(4):353–358. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Leslie WD; Manitoba Bone Density Program Committee. Absolute fracture risk reporting in clinical practice: a physician-centered survey. Osteoporos Int 2008;19(4):459–463. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Burger H, de Laet CE, Weel AE, Hofman A, Pols HA. Added value of bone mineral density in hip fracture risk scores. Bone 1999;25(3):369–374. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Henry MJ, Pasco JA, Sanders KM, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA. Fracture Risk (FRISK) Score: Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Radiology 2006;241(1):190–196. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Albertsson DM, Mellström D, Petersson C, Eggertsen R. Validation of a 4-item score predicting hip fracture and mortality risk among elderly women. Ann Fam Med 2007;5(1):48–56. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008;19(4):385–397. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. BMJ 2009;339:b4229. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lippuner K, Johansson H, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R. FRAX assessment of osteoporotic fracture probability in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 2010;21(3):381–389. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dawson-Hughes B; National Osteoporosis Foundation Guide Committee. A revised clinician’s guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93(7):2463–2465. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fujiwara S, Nakamura T, Orimo Het al.. Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). Osteoporos Int 2008;19(4):429–435. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lekamwasam S. Application of FRAX model to Sri Lankan postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 2010;13(1):51–55. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Johansson H, Kanis JA, McCloskey EVet al.. A FRAX(R) model for the assessment of fracture probability in Belgium. Osteoporos Int. Published March 30, 2010. Accessed July 2010. Google Scholar
  • 16 Faulkner KA, Chan BK, Cauley JAet al.. Histories including number of falls may improve risk prediction for certain non-vertebral fractures in older men. Inj Prev 2009;15(5):307–311. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pluskiewicz W, Adamczyk P, Franek Eet al.. Ten-year probability of osteoporotic fracture in 2012 Polish women assessed by FRAX and nomogram by Nguyen et al: conformity between methods and their clinical utility. Bone 2010;46(6):1661–1667. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ensrud KE, Lui LY, Taylor BCet al.. A comparison of prediction models for fractures in older women: is more better? Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2087–2094. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kuruvilla K, Kenny AM, Raisz LG, Kerstetter JE, Feinn RS, Rajan TV. Importance of bone mineral density measurements in evaluating fragility bone fracture risk in Asian Indian men. Osteoporos Int. Published May 6, 2010. Accessed July 2010. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WSet al.. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women: Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 1995;332(12):767–773. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wardlaw GM. Putting body weight and osteoporosis into perspective. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63(3 suppl):433S–436S. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kröger H, Tuppurainen M, Honkanen R, Alhava E, Saarikoski S. Bone mineral density and risk factors for osteoporosis: a population-based study of 1600 perimenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 1994;55(1):1–7. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Premaor MO, Pilbrow L, Tonkin C, Parker RA, Compston J. Obesity and fractures in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25(2):292–297. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pirro M, Fabbriciani G, Leli Cet al.. High weight or body mass index increase the risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. J Bone Miner Metab 2010;28(1):88–93. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Henry MJ, Pasco JA, Nicholson GC, Seeman E, Kotowicz MA. Prevalence of osteoporosis in Australian women: Geelong osteoporosis study. J Clin Densitom 2000;3(3):261–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Henry MJ, Pasco JA, Pocock NA, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA. Reference ranges for bone densitometers adopted Australia-wide: Geelong osteoporosis study. Australas Radiol 2004;48(4):473–475. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Lix LM; Manitoba Bone Density Program. Simplified system for absolute fracture risk assessment: clinical validation in Canadian women. J Bone Miner Res 2009;24(2):353–360. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 van Geel TA, Geusens PP, Nagtzaam IFet al.. Risk factors for clinical fractures among postmenopausal women: a 10-year prospective study. Menopause Int 2007;13(3):110–115. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cauley JA, Hochberg MC, Lui LYet al.. Long-term risk of incident vertebral fractures. JAMA 2007;298(23):2761–2767. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame Het al.. Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada: a shift to absolute fracture risk assessment. J Clin Densitom 2007;10(2):120–123. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received July 21, 2010; revision requested September 10; final revision received November 3; accepted November 10; final version accepted November 15.
Published online: May 2011
Published in print: May 2011