Endokrynologia Polska · 2026
The relationship between socioeconomic factors and fracture risk.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hebel Rafał M, Pluskiewicz Wojciech, Adamczyk Piotr, Hupsch Hanna
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to present the role of socioeconomic factors in fracture risk among postmenopausal women.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 508 consecutive postmenopausal women recruited from three osteoporotic outpatient clinics. The mean age was 69.8 ± 7.5 years. Data on clinical factors, as well as urban/rural residence, education, occupation, and maritalstatus, were collected. Bone status was assessed at the hip using a Lunar Prodigy device. Fracture risk over the next 10 years, expressedas a percentage, was established using the FRAX (major fractures), Garvan (any fractures), and POL-RISK (any fractures) algorithms.
RESULTS: The mean risk was 8.95 ± 6.43% for FRAX and 29.71 ± 20.53% and 28.1 ± 14.85% for Garvan and POL-RISK, respectively. Fracture risk calculated by any of the analyzed calculators was not influenced by place of residence or level of education. The type of job was relatedto fracture risk according to the FRAX major calculator only; the risk was significantly higher in the unemployed group compared with thethree remaining subgroups - those performing sedentary work, physical work, or standing work. The type of work had no effect onthe risk according to the other calculators. Although marital status, particularly widowhood, was associated with higher fracture risk inunivariate analysis, this effect was not significant after adjustment for age, suggesting that age is the underlying factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors were associated with fracture risk, and data on socioeconomic status should be incorporated into patient assessment for osteoporosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 508 consecutive postmenopausal women recruited from three osteoporotic outpatient clinics. The mean age was 69.8 ± 7.5 years. Data on clinical factors, as well as urban/rural residence, education, occupation, and maritalstatus, were collected. Bone status was assessed at the hip using a Lunar Prodigy device. Fracture risk over the next 10 years, expressedas a percentage, was established using the FRAX (major fractures), Garvan (any fractures), and POL-RISK (any fractures) algorithms.
RESULTS: The mean risk was 8.95 ± 6.43% for FRAX and 29.71 ± 20.53% and 28.1 ± 14.85% for Garvan and POL-RISK, respectively. Fracture risk calculated by any of the analyzed calculators was not influenced by place of residence or level of education. The type of job was relatedto fracture risk according to the FRAX major calculator only; the risk was significantly higher in the unemployed group compared with thethree remaining subgroups - those performing sedentary work, physical work, or standing work. The type of work had no effect onthe risk according to the other calculators. Although marital status, particularly widowhood, was associated with higher fracture risk inunivariate analysis, this effect was not significant after adjustment for age, suggesting that age is the underlying factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors were associated with fracture risk, and data on socioeconomic status should be incorporated into patient assessment for osteoporosis.