You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 1, Issue 1
  • Effect of competing mortality risks on predictive performance of the QFracture risk prediction tool for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture: external validation cohort study in a UK primary care population

Responses

Article menu
Research
Effect of competing mortality risks on predictive performance of the QFracture risk prediction tool for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture: external validation cohort study in a UK primary care population
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 9 February 2023
    External valdiation of QFracture-2012
    • Julia Hippisley-Cox, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology University of Oxford
    • Other Contributors:
      • Carol Coupland, professor of medical statistics

    As authors of the QFracture papers1-3, we read this article by Livingstone et al with interest. They stated that the had externally validated the QFracture-2016 algorithm using CPRD4. The authors report that whilst there was very good to excellent discrimination, calibration was poor. The authors attributed an apparent under-prediction to their outcome definition using the CPRD validation dataset since this included GP data linked to hospital data. However, we think this under-prediction is due to the authors using the wrong algorithm – the authors have confirmed that they had used a previous version (QFracture-2012) which is based on unlinked data. The QFracture-2016 algorithm is the version which is currently recommended and used in the NHS and is derived from the QResearch database including GP data linked to hospital and mortality data3. Therefore, the authors need to correct their paper and update their conclusions accordingly. We would also like to highlight that the code groups for QFracture are available here https://www.qresearch.org/data/qcode-group-library/
    References
    1. 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 (Online) 2009;339(7733):1291-95. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4229
    2. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Derivation and validation of updated QFracture algorith...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Julia Hippisley-Cox is professor at the university of Oxford, lead academic for the development of the QFracture score, founder, shareholder and former clinical director of ClinRisk Ltd (which produces open and closed source software to implement risk prediction algorithms in the NHS). Carol Coupland of professor at the university of Nottingham and senior research fellow at the university of Oxford and consultant statistician for ClinRisk Ltd.