ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2009
Opinions and attitudes concerning osteoporosis among Austrian general practitioners.
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- How General Practitioners and Their Patients Adhere to Osteoporosis Management: A Follow-Up Survey among Czech General Practitioners.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
- [Osteoporosis: a challenge for prevention].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
General practitioners play a crucial role in the management of osteoporosis. Thus, it is essential to determine the opinions and attitudes of family doctors concerning this disease. A structured pencil-paper questionnaire was distributed to all general physicians in a practice in Austria and 3.2% responded. Results were compared with a similar survey carried out in 1993. 84.4% of the responding doctors regarded the public health impact of osteoporosis as rather or very important, compared with 49.2% in 1993. 83.3% regarded prevention of osteoporosis as effective or very effective. This proportion rose from 66.2% in 1993. Regular physical exercise was rated as most effective in the prevention of osteoporosis, followed by calcium-rich diet and vitamin D- and calcium supplementation. 33.6% reported carrying out a standardised risk assessment prior to referral/non-referral for bone mineral densitometry. The most frequently cited aspects of the patient's medical history leading to this examination were permanent corticosteroid therapy, a history of fractures, and pain, as reported by 93.6, 84.6 and 71.2%, respectively. The most frequently reported interventions recommended by doctors to their osteoporosis patients in the prevention of falls were reduction of trip hazards (87.2%), reduction of psychotropic drugs (50.0%), balance, strength and endurance training (57.7, 48.1, and 42.3%, respectively). These results reveal strengths in the approach to prevention and early recognition of osteoporosis and prevention of falls, but potential room for improvement in the management of osteoporosis by general practitioners is also shown.
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.