03) 0.97 (0.89, 1.06)  2003 0.91 (0.89, 0.94) 1.07 (1.04, 1.11) 1.01 (0.97, 1.06) 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) 1.02 (0.96, 1.08) 0.89 (0.81, 0.97)  2004 0.89 (0.87, 0.92) 1.11

(1.08, 1.15) 0.97 (0.93, 1.02) 0.97 (0.92, 1.01) 0.99 (0.94, 1.05) 0.97 (0.89, 1.06)  2005 0.86 (0.84, 0.89) 1.10 (1.06, 1.13) 0.95 (0.91, 1.00) 0.97 (0.92, 1.02) 1.01 (0.95, 1.07) 0.97 (0.89, 1.06) Urban/Rural  Urban Core 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00  Not Urban core 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 0.93 (0.91, 0.96) 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) Geographic region  Northeast 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00  Midwest 1.03 (1.01, 1.06) 1.11 (1.08, 1.14) 0.98 (0.94, 1.01) 0.90 (0.87, 0.94) 0.96 (0.92, 1.01) 0.98 (0.91, 1.05)  West 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) 1.14 (1.11, 1.18) 0.70 (0.67, 0.73) 0.72 (0.68, 0.76) 0.68 (0.64, 0.72) Tariquidar mw AZD6738 order 0.72 (0.66, 0.79)  South 1.16 (1.13, 1.18) 1.22 (1.18, 1.25) 0.99 (0.96, 1.02) 0.94 (0.90, 0.97) 0.91 (0.87, 0.96) 0.91 (0.85, 0.98) Median income  0–<30,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00  30,000–<45,000 0.94 (0.92, 0.96) 0.97 (0.95, 1.00) 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) 0.95 (0.92, 0.99) 1.00 (0.95, 1.04) 0.94 (0.88, 1.00)  45,000–<60,000 0.91 (0.89, 0.93) 0.94 (0.92, 0.97) 1.00 ( 0.96, 1.04) 0.94 (0.90, 0.99) 0.98 (0.92, 1.03) 0.88 (0.82, 0.95)  60,000–<75,000 0.88 (0.85, 0.91) 0.90 (0.87,

0.94) 0.93 (0.89, 0.98) 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) 0.93 (0.87, 1.00) 0.82 (0.74, 0.90)  75,000+ 0.84 (0.81, 0.87) 0.89 (0.85, 0.93) 0.92 (0.87, 0.97) 0.86 (0.81, 0.92) 0.89 (0.82, 0.96) 0.82 (0.73, 0.91) aAdjusted for all variables in this table b N number of beneficiaries included in the analysis of each of the six

incident fracture sites c PY person-years of follow-up d IR crude incidence rate for the particular incident fracture site per 1,000 PY”
“Introduction The vertebral fracture status is a powerful and independent risk factor Hydroxychloroquine manufacturer for all new fractures, which is a major health care problem in the aging population of the western world [1–3]. Most patients with vertebral fractures are not clinically recognized. Although the concept of risk factors is gaining ground, the current clinical practice of osteoporosis assessment is still largely based on bone mineral density (BMD) measurement only [4]. In addition, considerable underreporting of vertebral fractures on plain X-rays and even on CT at rates of up to 50% has been demonstrated in many countries worldwide [5, 6]. For that reason it is now advised to specifically use the word “fracture” in reports. Furthermore costs, radiation issues, patient inconvenience and other reasons preclude more widespread recognition of vertebral fracture status as important to selleck inhibitor assess.