Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20458571›Full record

ReviewOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2011

Oral bisphosphonate compliance and persistence: a matter of choice?

S L Silverman, J T Schousboe, D T Gold

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Adherence to secondary fracture prevention is associated with reduced risk of subsequent fractures.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

S L SilvermanCedars-Sinai/UCLA/OMC, 8641 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 301, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA. stuarts@omcresearch.org
J T Schousboe
D T Gold

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compliance to oral bisphosphonates is suboptimal, with negative consequences of increased healthcare utilization and less effective fracture risk reduction. Extending dose interval increased adherence only moderately. We used literature derived from multiple chronic conditions to examine the problem of noncompliance with osteoporosis medication. We reviewed the literature on adherence to osteoporosis medication as well as that across multiple chronic conditions to understand what is known about the cause of the poor adherence. Poor compliance to oral medications is due mostly, not to forgetfulness, but to deliberate choice. Gender differences and style of healthcare management also play a role. Preliminary data suggest psychobehavioral interventions may help to improve motivation. We need to understand better reasons for poor compliance before effective interventions can be developed. Forgetfulness is only a small part of poor compliance. Patient preferences must be considered in medication decision making.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesDrug Administration ScheduleHumansMedication AdherenceOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonates

Identifiers

PMID20458571
PMCPMC3017316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.