ArticleDrugs & aging2010
Secondary prevention of osteoporosis in Australia: analysis of government-dispensed prescription data.
Article in Drugs & aging, 2010. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Actions following adverse drug events - how do these influence uptake and utilisation of newer and/or similar medications?BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Best practices in secondary fracture prevention: fracture liaison services.Current osteoporosis reports · 2013Review
- The epidemic of hip fractures: are we on the right track?PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis is a common cause of disability and death in elderly men and women. Until 2007, Australian Government-subsidized use of oral bisphosphonates, raloxifene and calcitriol (1alpha,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol) was limited to secondary prevention (requiring x-ray evidence of previous low-trauma fracture). The cost to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was substantial (164 million Australian dollars in 2005/6).
objectiveTo examine the dispensed prescriptions for oral bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitriol and two calcium products for the secondary prevention of osteoporosis (after previous low-trauma fracture) in the Australian population.
methodsWe analysed government data on prescriptions for oral bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitriol and two calcium products from 1995 to 2006, and by sex and age from 2002 to 2006. Prescription counts were converted to defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 population/day. This standardized drug utilization method used census population data, and adjusts for the effects of aging in the Australian population.
resultsTotal bisphosphonate use increased 460% from 2.19 to 12.26 DDD/1000 population/day between June 2000 and June 2006. The proportion of total bisphosphonate use in June 2006 was 75.1% alendronate, 24.6% risedronate and 0.3% etidronate. Raloxifene use in June 2006 was 1.32 DDD/1000 population/day. The weekly forms of alendronate and risedronate, introduced in 2001 and 2003, respectively, were quickly adopted. Bisphosphonate use peaked at age 80-89 years in females and 85-94 years in males, with 3-fold higher use in females than in males.
conclusionsPharmaceutical intervention for osteoporosis in Australia is increasing with most use in the elderly, the population at greatest risk of fracture. However, fracture prevalence in this population is considerably higher than prescribing of effective anti-osteoporosis medications, representing a missed opportunity for the quality use of medicines.
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.