| Objective To summarize the types, advantages, and disadvantages of risk prediction tools for osteoporotic fractures, so as to provide the basis and reference for the follow-up clinical research and clinical research. Methods From the perspective of common diagnostic techniques and risk assessment tools for osteoporotic fractures, the clinical diagnosis techniques of osteoporotic fractures and the commonly used risk assessment tools nationally and internationally were reviewed. Results In the aspect of diagnosis technology, dual energy X-ray absorption measurement technology, quantitative ultrasound technology, quantitative CT technology, and nuclear magnetic resonance technology were mainly used. They had advantage in accuracy and intuition but had defects in high cost and radiation. In the simple tools for fracture risk prediction, the International Osteoporosis Foundation Assessment Tool, the Garvan nomogram assessment tool, the Q Fracture? algorithm, the Asian osteoporosis self-screening tool, and the Beijing Friendship Hospital Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool were used. They had great advantage in easy use, but had defects in sensitivity, specificity, and extrapolation. In addition, traditional Chinese medicine risk assessment model based on the characteristics of symptoms and signs or TCM syndrome could be used in the early prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Conclusion The diagnostic technique and risk assessment tool of osteoporotic fractures are increasing day by day. However, it is not common to adapt to the characteristics of high risk population of osteoporotic fractures in China. Risk prediction tools for Chinese population should be constructed. |