Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22842952›Full record

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.

O Bruyère, M Fossi, B Zegels, L Leonori, M Hiligsmann, A Neuprez, J-Y Reginster

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2015
    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

7 authors.

O BruyèreDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Sart-Tilman, Bât B23 Av. de l'Hôpital 3, 4000 Liège, Belgium. olivier.bruyere@ulg.ac.be
M Fossi
B Zegels
L Leonori
M Hiligsmann
A Neuprez
J-Y Reginster

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BelgiumBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesReimbursement MechanismsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSocial SecurityBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

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.