Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24206869›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Appropriate osteoporosis treatment by family physicians in response to FRAX vs CAROC reporting: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Karen A Beattie, George Ioannidis, Joy C MacDermid, Ruby Grewal, Alexandra Papaioannou, Jonathan D Adachi, Anthony B Hodsman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Complex interventions can increase osteoporosis investigations and treatment: a systematic review and meta-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
    Pooled it
  2. Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Karen A BeattieDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: karen.beattie@camris.ca.
George IoannidisDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Joy C MacDermidSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ruby GrewalDepartment of Surgery, Western University, St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Alexandra PapaioannouDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, St. Peter's Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jonathan D AdachiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Anthony B HodsmanDepartment of Medicine, Western University, St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 109640CIHR 88225-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Canadian guidelines recommend either the FRAX or the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) fracture risk assessment tools to report 10-yr fracture risk as low (<10%), moderate (10%-20%) or high (>20%). It is unknown whether one reporting system is more effective in helping family physicians (FPs) identify individuals who require treatment. Individuals ≥50 yr old with a distal radius fracture and no previous osteoporosis diagnosis or treatment were recruited. Participants underwent a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan and answered questions about fracture risk factors. Participants' FPs were randomized to receive either a FRAX report or the standard CAROC-derived bone mineral density report currently used by the institution. Only the FRAX report included statements regarding treatment recommendations. Within 3 mo, all participants were asked about follow-up care by their FP, and treatment recommendations were compared with an osteoporosis specialist. Sixty participants were enrolled (31 to FRAX and 29 to CAROC). Kappa statistics of agreement in treatment recommendation were 0.64 for FRAX and 0.32 for bone mineral density. The FRAX report was preferred by FPs and resulted in better postfracture follow-up and treatment that agreed more closely with a specialist. Either the clear statement of fracture risk or the specific statement of treatment recommendations on the FRAX report may have supported FPs to make better treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Physicians, FamilyAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaComorbidityDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPredictive Value of TestsRadius FracturesRisk AssessmentBone mineral densitydecision makingfracture riskFRAXosteoporosistreatment recommendation

Identifiers

PMID24206869
PMCPMC5094883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.