You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter to the editor
Reproductive history and fracture risk in postmenopausal women in a US national survey
  1. Prasanna Santhanam1,
  2. Steven P Rowe2,1,
  3. Lilja B Solnes3
  1. 1 Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; psantha1@jhmi.edu
  2. 2 Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; srowe8@jhmi.edu
  3. 3 Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; lsolnes1@jhmi.edu
  1. ↵Correspondence to Dr. Steven P Rowe; srowe8{at}jhmi.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101808

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Estrogen promotes bone health, long-term replacement delaying osteoporosis,1 while sex steroids given for menstrual irregularity to premenopausal women increase bone mass.2 We therefore assessed the relation between reproductive health and fracture risk in postmenopausal women (≥50 years) in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).3

    In the 2013–2014 survey, fracture risk as FRAX scores4 was reported in an osteoporosis questionnaire with calculation of the 10-year risk of major hip fracture. We collected data on the age at last menstrual period, last live birth, and first live birth as continuous variables, and documented history of pregnancy …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PS was involved in the literature search. SR and LS were involved in significant design inputs. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.