ArticleRheumatology international2013
Comparison of the proportion of patients potentially treated with an anti-osteoporotic drug using the current criteria of the Belgian national social security and the new suggested FRAX criteria.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : A report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.Archives of osteoporosis · 2016Pooled it
- High detection rate of osteoporosis with screening of a general hospitalized population: a 6-year study in 6406 patients in a university hospital setting.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds--an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the number of anti-osteoporosis treatments that would be reimbursed by the Belgian social security if either FRAX or the current criteria were used to determine access to reimbursement. This is a retrospective study based on data from 1,000 women randomly selected from an outpatient hospital specialized in bone metabolism in Belgium. Proportions of potentially refunded treatments between FRAX and current criteria were compared. Out of the 1,000 women files, 890 have sufficient information to assess FRAX. In Belgium, current criteria include a bone mineral density (BMD) T score below -2.5 at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck or the total hip and/or at least a prevalent vertebral fracture. Using these criteria, 167 women (18.8 %) would have access to reimbursement. Using the criteria based on the validated Belgian FRAX tool, only 116 women (13.0 %) would have access to reimbursement, meaning that access to reimbursement based on FRAX criteria would reduce by 30 % the anti-osteoporosis drug expenses covered by the national social security. Interestingly, only 65 women out of the 116 (56.0 %) selected with the FRAX criteria were also selected with the current criteria of the national social security. A substantial proportion of individuals that would potentially receive a reimbursement for their treatment using the FRAX criteria do not have access to any refund for their treatment with the current criteria. Since patients identified with the FRAX tool are those with the highest risk profile for future fractures, reappraisals of treatment reimbursement guidelines are expected in Belgium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22842952What 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.