Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21264553›Full record

ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2011

Gender differences in osteoporosis and fractures.

Peggy M Cawthon

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 305 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. [Trends in burden of pelvic fractures from 1990 to 2023 and long short-term memory-based insights into future projections].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peggy M CawthonSan Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 5, Suite 5700, San Francisco, CA 94107-1762, USA. pcawthon@sfcc-cpmc.net
California Pacific Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis is generally thought of as a "woman's disease" because the prevalence of osteoporosis and the rate of fractures are much higher in postmenopausal women than in older men. However, the absolute number of men affected by osteoporosis and fractures is large, as at least 2.8 million men in the United States are thought to have osteoporosis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this review are to (1) highlight gender differences in osteoporosis and fracture risk, (2) describe disparities in treatment and outcomes after fractures between men and women, and (3) propose solutions to reducing disparities in treatment and prevention.

methodsA literature survey was conducted using MEDLINE with a variety of search terms and using references from the author's personal collection of articles. A formal search strategy and exclusion criteria were not employed and the review is therefore selective. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Postmenopausal women have a higher prevalence of osteoporosis and greater incidence of fracture than older men. Despite the higher fracture risk in postmenopausal women, older men tend to have worse outcomes after fracture and poorer treatment rates, although less is known about the disease course in men. Multifaceted interventions to improve the screening and treatment for osteoporosis were recently developed. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Improvement in treatment rates of those at risk, regardless of gender, is an important goal in osteoporosis management. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Further development and evaluation of cost-effective, multifaceted interventions for screening and treatment of osteoporosis and fractures are needed; such interventions will likely improve the primary prevention of fractures.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityPrejudiceSex CharacteristicsBone DensityFemaleFractures, SpontaneousHumansMaleMass ScreeningMenOsteoporosisRisk FactorsSex FactorsTreatment OutcomeWomen

Identifiers

PMID21264553
PMCPMC3111766
OpenAlexW2077932654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.