SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Application value of FRAX in high-altitude areas in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-altitude environments in China are associated with altered bone metabolism and an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. Given the limited availability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in these regions, the FRAX tool provides a practical alternative for fracture risk assessment. However, the screening performance and diagnostic performance of FRAX in plateau populations remain unclear. This study systematically evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FRAX-probability of major osteoporotic fracture (PMOF), probability of hip fracture (PHF), and FRAX high-risk thresholds-in high-altitude areas in China. Methods: Six English and Chinese databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2025. Studies reporting true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative values for FRAX in populations residing above 1,500 m were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on region, bone mineral density (BMD) inclusion, reference standard, gender, and study design. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with high or unclear Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) risk were performed. Results: Eleven studies were included. For PMOF, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.70 and 0.82, respectively (AUC = 0.82), while PHF yielded pooled estimates of 0.68 and 0.84, respectively (AUC = 0.82). Both analyses showed substantial heterogeneity ( Conclusions: FRAX may provide preliminary and exploratory information for fracture risk screening in high-altitude settings; however, the evidence remains limited and imprecise, precluding firm conclusions regarding its clinical usefulness. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/INPLASY-Protocol-7296.pdf, identifier INPLASY202510040.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.