Dear Pernille,

I am fine with your suggestions, however, in the case of CEP_V the suggested hierarchy of numbers 

1 = Low-trauma fracture

2 = Osteoporotic fracture

3 = Adequate trauma fracture

do not reflect the current classification in RESPOND, since there you will find

1. Traumatic          
2. Osteoporotic/Fragility (low energy, also includes atypical fracture as a consequence of long term bisphosphonate treatment)    
3. Pathologic (e. g due to bone metastases)

Low- energy fractures may include fragility/stress fractures, osteoporotic fractures as well as pathologic fractures. Both classifications should aim for harmonization

Best regards

Robert (Zangerle)

Dear Pernille,

I am fine with your suggestions, however, in the case of CEP_V the suggested hierarchy of numbers 

1 = Low-trauma fracture

2 = Osteoporotic fracture

3 = Adequate trauma fracture

do not reflect the current classification in RESPOND, since there you will find

1. Traumatic          
2. Osteoporotic/Fragility (low energy, also includes atypical fracture as a consequence of long term bisphosphonate treatment)    
3. Pathologic (e. g due to bone metastases)

Low- energy fractures may include fragility/stress fractures, osteoporotic fractures as well as pathologic fractures. Both classifications should aim for harmonization

Best regards

Robert (Zangerle)

Dear Robert

Agreed, the coding should be:

CEP_ID
FRA
 

CEP_SPEC

Any of available options

Interpretation of CEP_V

1 = Traumatic

2 = Osteoporotic/Fragility

3 = Pathologic

Best

Dennis