Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24104520›Full record

ArticleCurrent osteoporosis reports2013

Commentary: the five Ws of a Fracture Liaison Service: why, who, what, where, and how? In osteoporosis, we reap what we sow.

Jeffrey R Curtis, Stuart L Silverman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current osteoporosis reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Developing fracture liaison service framework based on comparative analysis and scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  6. Costs of incident non-hip osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women from a payer perspective.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Osteoporosis management in the United States.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022
    Article
  11. Cultivating across "pockets of excellence": challenges to sustaining efforts to improve osteoporosis care.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Implementation of the Western Australian Osteoporosis Model of Care: a fracture liaison service utilising emergency department information systems to identify patients with fragility fracture to improve current practice and reduce re-fracture rates: a 12-month analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018
    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

2 authors.

Jeffrey R CurtisDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street South, FOT 802D, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA, jcurtis@uab.edu.
Stuart L Silverman

Funding

Ethnic Differences in the Risk of Fracture and Vascular DiseaseK23AR053351 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI CURTIS, JEFFREY R. · 2007 to 2011
$755k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR053351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Establishing a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) to identify and treat patients with a recent fragility fracture has been shown to be effective, save money, useful to document high quality of care, and makes good clinical sense. A FLS starts with an osteoporosis champion and encompasses identification of patients with a recent fracture, diagnostic workup, treatment, and follow-up. A FLS is most effective when it is able to function in multiple settings: the hospital, emergency department, and outpatient clinic. Implementation may be somewhat easier in a closed healthcare system but can be feasible even in an open system. There are many barriers to implementation which can be addressed. The future of FLS care lies in a collaborative systems-based approach with appropriate stakeholder engagement, leading to seamless integration of osteoporosis care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDisease ManagementFractures, BoneHumansOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesQuality of Health CareSecondary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID24104520
PMCPMC3847905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.