ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2010
Long-term effect of the Women's Health Initiative study on antiosteoporosis medication prescribing.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 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.
- Association between gastrointestinal events and osteoporosis treatment initiation in women diagnosed with osteoporosis in France: a retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
- We need a break: Bisphosphonates.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2013Review
- Physician differences in managing postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the POSSIBLE US™ treatment registry study.Drugs & aging · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo describe long-term prescribing patterns of osteoporosis therapy before and after the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) publication.
methodsWe conducted a time-series analysis from 1997 to 2005 using nationally representative data based on office-based physician and hospital ambulatory clinic visits. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted using chi-square tests and logistic regression, respectively, and trends in the prevalence of osteoporosis therapies were evaluated per 6-month (semiannual) intervals. Linear regression and graphic techniques were used to determine statistical differences in the prevalence trends between the two periods.
resultsOverall prevalence of therapeutic or preventive osteoporosis therapy was similar between the WHI periods. However, a significant decrease in estrogen therapy and increases in bisphosphonates, calcium/vitamin D were observed in the period after the WHI publication (p < 0.05). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed older age and white race were associated with a higher likelihood of antiosteoporosis medication (AOM) prescription, and Medicaid insurance type was associated with a lower likelihood of an AOM prescription. Excluding calcium/vitamin D, nonestrogen therapy was more likely to be prescribed in the after-WHI period (office-based physician clinic: [adjusted OR, aOR] 2.49 [2.04-4.04]; hospital-based clinic: aOR 2.42 [1.67-7.50]) Nonestrogen therapy was more prevalent in visits made by older women, women of white race, women with contraindicated conditions for estrogen therapy, and women from the Northeast region.
conclusionsAfter the WHI publication, the overall prevalence of osteoporosis therapy did not change; however, a shift from estrogen to nonestrogen therapy was observed after the WHI publication. Black women were less likely to receive nonestrogen antiosteoporosis therapy in hospital-based clinics.
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.