Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18629573›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2008

Systematic review of trends in prophylaxis of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: the need for standard audit guidelines.

M Duyvendak, M Naunton, E N van Roon, G A W Bruyn, J R B J Brouwers

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Understanding and Managing Corticosteroid-Induced Osteoporosis.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2021
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M DuyvendakDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Ant. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.duyvendak@rug.nl
M Naunton
E N van Roon
G A W Bruyn
J R B J Brouwers
Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLCharles Darwin University · AUUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledCorticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIOP) is currently undertreated. Systematic review of the literature revealed that the percentage of patients treated adequately is dependent on study quality. Therefore, it remains unknown whether adherence to the guidelines is really so poor. Five major quality criteria provide the standard for future studies on this scope.

introductionIt has recently been stated that the degree of prophylaxis of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIOP) is low and effort should be put into determining reasons for non-prescribing of preventive agents. The aim of this study was to identify: how many studies adequately audit the prevalent guideline; the longitudinal trends in prevention of CIOP; which patient groups appear to be most undertreated; and which intervention strategies are effective.

methodsWe performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and systematically recorded the outcomes and quality of published studies, using five major criteria.

resultsTwenty-four studies were included in the analysis. The quality of the included studies was poor (31%) or moderate (37%). There was a longitudinal increase in quality of the studies and percentage of prevention. Multivariable linear regression showed that the quality of the study was the only independent predictor of the prevention rate reported in the study.

conclusionsThe results show undertreatment of CIOP might be due to insufficient quality of the studies rather than poor practice or failure to recognise the right patients. Future interventions should comply with five major quality criteria, and a multifaceted approach is required in order to make an impact on the underprescribing of CIOP prophylaxis.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleGlucocorticoidsGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMedical AuditOsteoporosisPractice Guidelines as TopicTreatment OutcomeBone Density Conservation AgentsGlucocorticoids

Identifiers

PMID18629573
OpenAlexW2046341202

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.