Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24376589›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Patterns of anti-osteoporosis medication use among women at high risk of fracture: findings from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW).

Stephen Gehlbach, Frederick H Hooven, Allison Wyman, Adolfo Diez-Perez, Jonathan D Adachi, Xuemei Luo, Andrew G Bushmakin, Frederick A Anderson, GLOW Investigators

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Self-perception of fracture risk: what can it tell us?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2017
    Observational
  6. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephen GehlbachUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Frederick H HoovenUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Allison WymanUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Adolfo Diez-PerezHospital del Mar, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain.
Jonathan D AdachiSaint Joseph's Hospital, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Xuemei LuoPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, United States of America.
Andrew G BushmakinPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, United States of America.
Frederick A AndersonUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America.
GLOW Investigators
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USPfizer (United States) · USHospital Del Mar · ESMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess patterns of anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) use over 3 years among women at high risk of major fracture.

methodsThe GLOW registry follows a cohort of more than 40,000 women aged ≥ 55 from 615 primary care practices in 10 countries. Self-administered surveys (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) collected data on patient characteristics, perception of fracture risk, and AOM use. FRAX scores were calculated from the baseline surveys and women classified as high risk if their FRAX 10-year probability of major fracture was ≥ 20%.

resultsA total of 5774 women were classified as at high risk and had complete data over 3 years. At baseline, 2271 (39%) reported receiving AOM, 739 (13%) reported prior but not current use, and 2764 (48%) said they had never used AOM. Over 3 years, 85% of baseline non-users continued as non-users and 15% initiated AOM; among baseline users, 49% continued the same medication class, 29% stopped AOM, and 12% switched. Women who stopped AOM were less likely to self-report osteoporosis (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.75) than women who continued AOM. Compared with non-users who did not begin treatment, women initiating AOM were more likely to report a diagnosis of osteoporosis (HR 11.3, 95% CI 8.2-15.5) or osteopenia (HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.9-5.7) and be very concerned about osteoporosis (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.8).

conclusionsLess than 40% of women at high risk of fracture reported taking AOM. Women who stopped AOM were less likely to believe they have osteoporosis. Women who initiated treatment appeared motivated primarily by a diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia and concern about the condition.

Indexed as

AgedBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleFractures, BoneHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOsteoporosisPractice Patterns, Physicians'Risk FactorsBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID24376589
PMCPMC3869728
OpenAlexW2122789958

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.