English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A few indications for treatment and thresholds for intervention in osteoporosis have been propounded in the literature and recommended in guidelines. These include a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ −2.5, fracture probability-based scores and the presence of a fragility fracture. A low BMD is associated with an increased risk of fracture. However, a BMD T-score of ≤ −2.5 on its own does not capture fracture risk in its entirety. Fracture risk assessment tools that are based on clinical risk factors arose from the misgivings about using BMD T-scores in isolation to assess fracture risk. Algorithms such as FRAX, Garvan etc, integrate various clinical risk factors with or without BMD to compute the probability of a hip fracture or a major osteoporotic fracture over a finite period. These probabilities do not yield distinctive thresholds by themselves and need to be interpreted wisely and adopted by consensus. Evidence exists to show that treatment can decrease the risk of sustaining a second fracture. Therefore, patients with a fragility fracture should be considered for treatment. In this narrative interview, we will explore the strengths and limitations of some of these indications for treatment and will discuss the various points of contention surrounding them.

Treatment indications and thresholds of intervention: consensus and controversies in osteoporosis