Direct comparison of FRAX(R) and a simplified fracture risk assessment tool in routine clinical practice: a registry-based cohort study

The multi-faceted nature of age-associated osteoporosis

Age-associated osteoporosis (AAOP) poses a significant health burden, characterized by increased fracture risk due to declining bone mass and strength. Effective prevention and early treatment strategies are crucial to mitigate the disease burden and the associated healthcare costs. Current therapeutic approaches effectively target the individual contributing factors to AAOP. Nonetheless, the management of AAOP is complicated by the multitude of variables that affect its development. Main intrinsic and extrinsic factors contributing to AAOP risk are reviewed here, including mechanical unloading, nutrient deficiency, hormonal disbalance, disrupted metabolism, cognitive decline, inflammation and circadian disruption. Furthermore, it is discussed how these can be targeted for prevention and treatment. Although valuable as individual targets for intervention, the interconnectedness of these risk factors result in a unique etiology for every patient. Acknowledgement of the multifaceted nature of AAOP will enable the development of more effective and sustainable management strategies, based on a holistic, patient-centered approach.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

General Comorbidity Indicators Contribute to Fracture Risk Independent of FRAX: Registry-Based Cohort Study

CONTEXT

FRAX® estimates 10-year fracture probability from osteoporosis-specific risk factors. Medical comorbidity indicators are associated with fracture risk but whether these are independent from those in FRAX is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized Johns Hopkins Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADG®) score or recent hospitalization number may be independently associated with increased risk for fractures.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included women and men age ≥ 40 in the Manitoba BMD Registry (1996-2016) with at least 3 years prior health care data and used linked administrative databases to construct ADG scores along with number of hospitalizations for each individual. Incident Major Osteoporotic Fracture and Hip Fracture was ascertained during average follow-up of 9 years; Cox regression analysis determined the association between increasing ADG score or number of hospitalizations and fractures.

RESULTS

Separately, hospitalizations and ADG score independently increased the hazard ratio for fracture at all levels of comorbidity (hazard range 1.2-1.8, all P < 0.05), irrespective of adjustment for FRAX, BMD, and competing mortality. Taken together, there was still a higher than predicted rate of fracture at all levels of increased comorbidity, independent of FRAX and BMD but attenuated by competing mortality. Using an intervention threshold of major fracture risk >20%, application of the comorbidity hazard ratio multiplier to the patient population FRAX scores would increase the number of treatment candidates from 8.6% to 14.4%.

CONCLUSION

Both complex and simple measures of medical comorbidity may be used to modify FRAX-based risk estimates to capture the increased fracture risk associated with multiple comorbid conditions in older patients.

Comparison of 2 fracture risk estimation processes in Alberta: a cross-sectional chart review

BACKGROUND

In Canada, decisions regarding osteoporosis pharmacotherapy are based on estimated 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We aimed to determine how frequently 2 common approaches (Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada [CAROC] tool and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) produced different estimates and to seek possible explanations for differences.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional chart review at a tertiary osteoporosis centre (Dr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre in Calgary). Included patients were women referred for consideration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy who attended a consultation between 2016 and 2019 and whose charts contained 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk estimates using both the CAROC tool (based on bone mineral density [BMD] results) and FRAX (based on BMD results and clinically assessed fracture risk factors). Risk estimates provided on BMD reports (calculated with CAROC) and generated through osteoporosis clinic consultation (calculated with FRAX, including BMD) were categorized as low (< 10.0%), moderate (10.0%-19.9%) or high (≥ 20.0%). Estimates were considered discordant when they placed the patient in different risk categories.

RESULTS

Of 190 patients evaluated, 99 (52.1%) had discordant risk estimates. Although a similar proportion were considered high risk by BMD reports using the CAROC tool (17.9%) and clinic charts using FRAX (19.5%), the 2 methods identified different patients as being high risk. Around the crucial high-risk (20.0%) treatment threshold, discordance was present in 37 patients (19.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5%-25.7%); discordance around the moderate-risk (10.0%) threshold was present in 69 (36.3%, 95% CI 29.5%-43.2%) patients. Disagreement regarding fracture history between BMD reports and clinic charts was observed in 19.8% of patients.

INTERPRETATION

Fracture risk estimates on BMD reports (using the CAROC tool) and those calculated in the clinical setting (using FRAX) frequently result in different risk classification. Osteoporosis treatment decisions may differ in up to half of patients depending on which estimate is used, highlighting the need for a consistent and accurate assessment process for fracture risk.

A scorecard for osteoporosis in Canada and seven Canadian provinces

The scorecard evaluates the burden and management of osteoporosis in Canada and how care pathways differ across Canadian provinces. The results showed there are inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and post-fracture care programs in Canada. Interventions are needed to close the osteoporosis treatment gap and minimize these inequities.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to develop a visual scorecard that assesses the burden of osteoporosis and its management within Canada and seven Canadian provinces.

METHODS

We adapted the Scorecard for Osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) to score osteoporosis indicators for Canada and seven provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland). We obtained data from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with osteoporosis experts. We scored 20 elements across four domains: burden of disease, policy framework, service provision, and service uptake. Each element was scored as red, yellow, or green, indicating high, intermediate, or low risk, respectively. Elements with insufficient data were scored black.

RESULTS

Canada performed well on several elements of osteoporosis care, including high uptake of risk assessment algorithms and minimal wait times for hip fracture surgery. However, there were no established fracture registries, and reporting on individuals with high fracture risk who remain untreated was limited. Furthermore, osteoporosis was not an official health priority in most provinces. Government-backed action plans and other osteoporosis initiatives were primarily confined to Ontario and Alberta. Several provinces (Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) did not have any registered fracture liaison service (FLS) programs. Access to diagnosis and treatment was also inconsistent and reimbursement policies did not align with clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Government-backed action plans are needed to address provincial inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and FLS programs in Canada. Further characterization of the treatment gap and the establishment of fracture registries are critical next steps in providing high-quality osteoporosis care.

Controversies Surrounding the BMD Reporting Standard for the Determination of 10-Year Absolute Fracture Risk: A Canadian Perspective

The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada currently endorse a fracture risk prediction tool called CAROC. It has been used in Canada since 2005 with an update in 2010. It is an integral part of bone mineral densitometry reporting across the country. New osteoporosis guidelines from Osteoporosis Canada (OC) are expected in the near future. There has been pressure on radiologists to report fracture risk using an alternative fracture risk prediction platform called FRAX. In addition, OC collaborated in the development of the Canadian FRAX model and has been copromoting both FRAX and CAROC, raising the prospect that new guidelines may seek to replace CAROC with FRAX for fracture risk determination. A number of concerns have been raised about FRAX, including: (1) FRAX has not released its algorithms to the public domain with the consequence that it is impossible to verify results for an individual patient; (2) FRAX has incorrectly claimed that it was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and has used this affiliation to promote itself until recently ordered by the WHO to desist; (3) FRAX requires collection of additional clinical information beyond that needed for CAROC, and this patient-reported medical data is prone to substantial error; and (4) despite claims to the contrary, there are no valid studies comparing FRAX to CAROC. We believe it is important that radiologists be aware of these issues in order to provide input into future Technical Standards for Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting of the Canadian Association of Radiologists.

Relationship Between Metabolic Syndrome and Bone Fracture Risk in Mid-Aged Korean Women Using FRAX Scoring System

Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and bone fracture risk assessed by the Fracture Risk Algoritham (FRAX) tool in mid-aged Korean women. Methods: Retrospectively, the study reviewed medical records of 1,975 female patients with or without MetS, who underwent routine medical checkups from 2010 to 2016 at Pusan National University Hospital. The MetS group included the patients who met diagnostic criteria for MetS based on the revised National Cholesterol Education Program reported in Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATPIII), and the control group was composed of those patients without MetS. Each of the patients was assessed through self-report questionnaires and individual interview with a health care provider. The FRAX tool was used for bone fracture risk. Results: Univariate logistic regression analysis of various parameters for MetS showed increase in both FRAX1 and FRAX2 with odds ratio of 1.387 and 1.474 with P < 0.0001 each, respectively. Through Pearson's correlation coefficient study, correlation of patient's high-risk status of bone fracture with age was found. Multivariate analysis of such variables confirmed that only the age of patients was statistically significant in relationship to high-risk of fracture by FRAX tool. Conclusion: MetS was not significantly associated with the patient's high-risk status of bone fracture analyzed by using FRAX; however, the absolute values of FRAX scores were increased in MetS patients (FRAX1 = 4.10 and FRAX2 = 0.40%) compared to their control group (FRAX1 = 3.20% and FRAX2 = 0.20%).

A Comparison of US and Canadian Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Postmenopausal Women

The optimal approach to osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women is unclear. We compared (i) the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Osteoporosis Canada osteoporosis screening strategies; and (ii) the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) and Canadian treatment strategies. We used data from the prospective Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials of women aged 50 to 79 years at baseline (n = 117,707 followed for self-reported fractures; n = 8134 in bone mineral density [BMD] subset). We determined the yield of the screening and treatment strategies in identifying women who experienced major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during a 10-year follow-up. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, 23.1% of women were identified for BMD testing under the USPSTF strategy and 52.3% under the Canadian strategy. For women ≥65 years, 100% were identified for testing under the USPSTF and Canadian strategies, 35% to 74% were identified for treatment under NOF, and 16% to 37% were identified for treatment under CAROC (range among 5-year age subgroups). Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, the USPSTF strategy identified 6.7% of women 50 to 54 years-old and 49.5% of women 60 to 64 years-old for BMD testing (versus 54.4% and 60.6% for the Canadian strategy, respectively). However, the specificity of the USPSTF strategy was higher than that of the Canadian strategy among women 50 to 64 years-old. Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, sensitivity for identifying women as treatment candidates was lowest for both strategies in women aged 50 to 64 (NOF 10% to 38%; CAROC 1% to 15%) and maximal in 75-year-old to 79-year-old women (NOF 82.8%; 51.6% CAROC); specificity declined with advancing age and was lower with the NOF compared to the CAROC strategy. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, the screening and treatment strategies examined had low sensitivity for identifying those who subsequently experience MOF; sensitivity was higher among women ≥65 years than among younger women. New screening and treatment algorithms are needed. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Analysis of mortality and fixation failure in geriatric fractures using quantitative computed tomography

OBJECTIVES

While osteoporosis has been shown to be a contributing factor in low energy fractures in the elderly, limited data exists regarding the correlation of bone mineral density (BMD) and T-Scores to mortality and failure of fracture fixation. This study seeks to determine the relationship between femoral neck BMD in elderly patients with typical geriatric fractures and mortality and fracture fixation failure using Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients over the age of 65 who sustained fractures of the proximal humerus, distal radius, pelvic ring, acetabulum, hip, proximal tibia, and ankle who also underwent a CT scan that included an uninjured femoral neck were retrospectively reviewed. QCT was used to assess bone mineral density and T scores. Mortality and fixation failure were recorded. Standard descriptive statistics, as well as logistic regression were used to correlate BMD and mortality, and BMD and fixation failure.

RESULTS

Of the 173 patients initially screened, 150 met inclusion criteria. Patients who remained alive at the end of the study (LP) had significantly (P = .019) higher adjusted mean femoral neck BMD (0.502 g/cm²) than non-polytrauma patients who died (MNPT) (0.439 g/cm²) when controlling for age, time to mortality, follow up, CCI, and ASA. Patients who had fixation failure events (FE) had significantly (P = .002) lower adjusted mean femoral neck BMD (0.342 g/cm²) than patients without failure events (NE) (0.525 g/cm²) when controlling for age and time to radiographic follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study illustrates that QCT is a reliable method for the determination of femoral neck BMD in elderly patients with geriatric fractures. Furthermore, lower BMD/T-Scores are associated with increased mortality and fixation failures in this patient population.

Fracture Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice: Why Do It? What to Do It With?

Fracture is the outcome of concern in osteoporosis, and fracture reduction is the primary goal of osteoporosis treatment. Fracture risk assessment is a critical component in osteoporosis management. The earlier approach of deciding on whether to treat solely based on bone mineral density (BMD) T-scores has been supplanted by employing the concept of absolute risk over medium time periods and more encompassing integration of clinical risk factors with or without BMD into robust fracture risk assessment tools. Fracture risk estimation allows for identifying high-risk patient groups not only at a health system and population-based level and thereby allowing allocation of financial resources to the people most at risk, but also at an individual level for the clinician to involve the patient in shared decision-making processes for treatment. The process of fracture risk assessment involves several steps including performing a thorough history and physical examination, assessing BMD, doing radiological assessment for vertebral fractures, and laboratory evaluation to rule out secondary contributors to osteoporosis. The data thus obtained can be input into any one of several fracture risk assessment tools that are now available. The decision on which tool to use can be made on the background of country-specific guidelines, although it is imperative that the physician be aware of the limitations inherent to whichever tool is chosen. This article aims to provide a brief overview of why fracture risk estimation is important and the methods that can be employed for it by the physician in clinical practice.

Worldwide Fracture Prediction

The substantial increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases in general and osteoporosis in particular, necessitates the establishment of efficient and targeted diagnosis and treatment strategies. This chapter reviews and compares different tools for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; it also provides an overview of different treatment guidelines adopted by countries worldwide. While access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD) is limited in most areas in the world, the introduction of risk calculators that combine risk factors, with or without BMD, have resulted in a paradigm shift in osteoporosis screening and management. To-date, forty eight risk assessment tools that allow risk stratification of patients are available, however only few are externally validated and tested in a population-based setting. These include Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool; Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument; Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation; Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada calculator; Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator (FRAX); Garvan; and QFracture. These tools vary in the number of risk factors incorporated. We present a detailed analysis of the development, characteristics, validation, performance, advantages and limitations of these tools. The World Health Organization proposes a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 as an operational diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, and many countries have also adopted this cut-off as an intervention threshold in their treatment guidelines. With the introduction of the new fracture assessment calculators, many countries chose to include fracture risk as one of the major criteria to initiate osteoporosis treatment. Of the 52 national guidelines identified in 36 countries, 30 included FRAX derived risk in their intervention threshold and 22 were non-FRAX based.  No universal tool or guideline approach will address the needs of all countries worldwide.  Osteoporosis screening and management guidelines are best tailored according to the needs and resources of individual counties. While few countries have succeeded in generating valuable epidemiological data on osteoporotic fractures, to validate their risk calculators and base their guidelines, many have yet to find the resources to assess variations and secular trends in fractures, the performance of various calculators, and ultimately adopt the most convenient care pathway algorithms.