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) click here CFTRinh-172 molecular weight 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 see more 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 Cepharanthine 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]. Additional imaging studies of the spine have not become routine for a multitude of reasons, including lack of awareness of the vertebral fracture status as independent risk factor and possibly because osteoporosis is a condition secondary to many other diseases and it is not the “core” expertise of many physicians.