ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2013
Impact of sham-controlled vertebroplasty trials on referral patterns at two academic medical centers.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Were VCF patients at higher risk of mortality following the 2009 publication of the vertebroplasty "sham" trials?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debate persists regarding the merit of vertebroplasty following publication of blinded vertebroplasty trials in 2009, one of which was the Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST). This study was performed to determine whether referring physicians at two academic medical centers were aware of the trial results and to assess if this awareness prompted a change in their treatment of osteoporotic fractures. E-mail surveys were distributed to physicians within the Mayo Clinic and Baylor Health Care System (BHCS). Of 1390 surveys sent, 194 (14%) were returned. Results showed that 92 of 158 respondents (58%) reported familiarity with INVEST; 66 of 92 (72%) agreed that INVEST changed their understanding of vertebroplasty efficacy; and 64 of 92 (70%) agreed that INVEST diminished their enthusiasm to refer patients for vertebroplasty. However, 105 of 159 respondents (66%) felt vertebroplasty was an effective procedure in appropriate patients. Mayo physicians were more likely than BHCS physicians to be aware of INVEST (73% vs 67%, P < .0001), respond that INVEST changed their understanding of the appropriate treatment for osteoporotic compression fractures (79% vs 57%, P = 0.026), view vertebroplasty less favorably (45% vs 21%, P = 0.005), and treat osteoporotic compression fractures with medical therapy/pain management alone (73% vs 48%, P = 0.003). INVEST changed referring physicians' understanding of the role of vertebroplasty and diminished their willingness to refer osteoporotic compression fracture patients; the impact varied by location.
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.