ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[Evidence based comparative analysis for managing osteoporosis in a primary health care setting].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Adequacy of pharmacological prescriptions in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis attended in a Primary Care center].Atencion primaria · 2026Observational
- [Adequacy of treatment for osteoporosis in primary prevention. Quantitative and qualitative study].Atencion primaria · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find out how physicians are managing osteoporosis in a primary care setting.
designCross-sectional study. CONTEXT: Primary care setting with a target population of 276,000 inhabitants, grouped into 9 basic health areas, Spain.
participantsWomen older than 45 years old on treatments for osteoporosis.
interventionsStandardised questionnaire self-filled in by women and compared with clinical records. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Suitability of the indication of diagnostic tests, proportion of treatments supported by diagnostic tests and according to evidence.
resultsThe mean age of the sample was 65.3 (9.6) years. Of the women included, 73.2% (n=243) had an indication for densitometry and only 60.2% (n=200) of them had this performed. The results of the densitometries were: 14% (n=28) normal, 31% (n=62) osteopenia and 55% (n=110) osteoporosis. Based on risk factors, in those women with densitometry indication, 39.5% (n=96) did not have it performed. In those women with no risk factors to justify the indication of densitometry (n=89), 59.6% (n=53) did have it performed. The two-year follow densitometry was not carried out on 78.7% (n=261) of women. Statistically significant differences were observed in the percentages of adequacy of the indications of densitometry and in the percentages of adequacy of the treatments in the different medical specialities analyzed (P < .05). Of the women who had densitometry, 42.4% (n=81) were inadequately treated.
conclusionsThe indication of densitometry is clearly improvable and there is a high variability in its adequacy in all the medical specialities studied. To a great extent, the indication of treatments for osteoporosis is not based on densitometry and is against the recommendations of the evidence based studies recently published.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.