Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16951911›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2007

Osteoporosis in men: are we referring enough for DXA and how?

Haider Al Attia, Bruce Adams

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Testing and treatment for osteoporosis following hip fracture in an integrated U.S. healthcare delivery system.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2011
    Article
  4. Selecting men for bone densitometry: performance of osteoporosis risk assessment tools in Portuguese men.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haider Al AttiaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mafraq Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. haideralattia@hotmail.com
Bruce Adams
Mafraq Hospital · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the pattern of male referrals to an osteodensitometry unit in a tertiary hospital in UAE. In this study, we reviewed the records of male patients referred for dual X-ray absorptiometry over 9 months since the establishment of the unit. Indications for scanning were categorized into high and medium risk and infrequent causes of osteopenia/osteoporosis. They were ranked according to frequency. The outcome was documented by category and patients were considered normal when they have bone mineral densities (BMD) over 0.82 g/cm(2), osteopenia between 0.60 and 0.82 g/cm(2), and osteoporosis below 0.60 g/cm(2) for hips and lumbar spine. The site with the lowest value was taken as representative of the patient's BMD status. The ages of the patients ranged from 16 to 91 years (mean of 55.2 years). Male referrals made up 8.8% (71/805) over the 9-month period. The number of indications was 83 accounting for 1.16 per patient. Most common reasons were patients on corticosteroid therapy (20.5%), bone rarefaction on radiographs (13%), and fragility fractures (12%). Others included back pain, general aches and pains, querying osteoporosis, and miscellaneous causes that made up 8.5% each. These were followed by immobilization, (6%) arthropathies (6%), excess alcohol intake (3.5%), aging, (2.5%), and hepatorenal disorders (2.5%). A positive family history of osteoporosis, treatment for neoplasia, smoking, and chronic obstructive airway disease (1% each) were the least common reasons for referral. Thirty-five patients (49%) had osteopenia, 16 (22.5%) had osteoporosis, and 20 (28%) were normal. The low referral rate and relatively high normal outcome among men suggest that osteoporosis is still viewed as a disease of females. This aberrant referral pattern, when viewing the majority of indications, reflects an inability to prioritize the reasons for referral. It is prudent, therefore, to instill an awareness of the increasing importance of osteoporosis in men in the minds of the referring clinicians.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityBone Diseases, MetabolicHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesUnited Arab Emirates

Identifiers

PMID16951911
OpenAlexW2093677262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.