ArticleSpringerPlus2013
Osteoporosis: are healthcare professionals missing an opportunity.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Awareness of osteoporosis risk assessment tools and screening recommendations among community pharmacists in Malaysia.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- A qualitative study of community pharmacists' opinions on the provision of osteoporosis disease state management services in Malaysia.BMC health services research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of the current study is to analyze different approaches of pharmacists and general practitioners towards availability and use of osteoporosis prescreening tools and to find out reasons that explain non utilization of such tools in clinical practice. SETTINGS: Among General practitioners and Community pharmacists in Pulau Penang, Malaysia. METHODOLOGY: An explorative cross sectional study was carried out using convenience sampling approach. A pre-validated self- administered questionnaire was used to carry out the study. A total of 170 healthcare professionals participated in study. MAIN OUTCOME: Evaluation of awareness, use and opinions of healthcare professionals regarding osteoporosis prescreening tools.
resultsResponse rate of study was 56%. The mean age of the participants was 39.00 + 7.89 years. Less than one third of participants were familiar with term prescreening tools or Clinical decision rules. The only osteoporosis prescreening tool that was recognized and used by majority of participants was FRAX. Participants agreed that low level of awareness regarding availability of prescreening tools poses hindrance in utilization of such tools in clinical practice. Majority of participants showed willingness to gain information and use such tools in future.
conclusionsThe results of our study demonstrate an urgent need of implementation of osteoporosis prescreening tools educational and awareness programs among healthcare professionals.
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.