Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24964893›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2014

Describing variation in the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: an overview of 11 hospitals within one regional area in England.

S Drew, S Sheard, J Chana, C Cooper, M K Javaid, A Judge, REFReSH study group

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Establishing consensus recommendations for long-term osteoporosis care for patients who have attended an Australian fracture liaison service: a Delphi study.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
  4. Article
  5. After the fall: improving osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture.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
  6. Cost-Effectiveness of Orthogeriatric and Fracture Liaison Service Models of Care for Hip Fracture Patients: A Population-Based Study.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Prescriptions and Incidence of Subsequent Fracture Among Primary Hip Fracture Patients in England and Wales: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Article
  11. Impact of hip fracture on hospital care costs: a population-based study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Article
  12. Two-year adherence to treatment and associated factors in a fracture liaison service in Spain.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015
    Observational
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S DrewOxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
S Sheard
J Chana
C Cooper
M K Javaid
A Judge
REFReSH study group
Southampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBStoke Mandeville Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/1023/01Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryThere is variation in how services to prevent second fractures after hip fracture are organised. We explored this in more detail at 11 hospitals. Results showed that there was unwarranted variation across a number of aspects of care. This information can be used to inform service delivery in the future.

introductionHip fractures are usually the result of low impact falls and underlying osteoporosis. Since the risk of further fractures in osteoporotic patients can be reduced by between 20 and 70 % with bone protection therapy, the NHS is under an obligation to provide effective fracture prevention services for hip fracture patients to reduce risk of further fractures. Evidence suggests there is variation in service organisation. The objective of the study was to explore this variation in more detail by looking at the services provided in one region in England.

methodsA questionnaire was designed which included questions around staffing, models of care and how the four components of fracture prevention (case finding, osteoporosis assessment, treatment initiation and adherence (monitoring) were undertaken. We also examined falls prevention services. Clinicians involved in the delivery of osteoporosis services at 11 hospitals in one region in England completed the questionnaire.

resultsThe service overview showed significant variation in service organisation across all aspects of care examined. All sites provided some form of case finding and assessment. However, interesting differences arose when we examined how these components were structured. Eight sites generally initiated treatment in an inpatient setting, two in outpatients and one in primary care. Monitoring was undertaken by secondary care at seven sites and the remainder conducted by GPs.

conclusionsThe variability in service provision was not explained by local variations in care need. Further work is now needed to establish how the variability in service provision affects key patient, clinical and health economic outcomes.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsBone Density Conservation AgentsDelivery of Health CareDrug MonitoringEnglandHip FracturesHospital AdministrationHumansOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPatient Care TeamProfessional PracticeRecurrenceSecondary PreventionState MedicineBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID24964893
PMCPMC4177230
OpenAlexW1970450030

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.