Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26275439›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2016

Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service--a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision.

J H E Yong, L Masucci, J S Hoch, R Sujic, D Beaton

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Return on investment of fracture liaison services: a systematic review and analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Economic impact and cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services: a systematic review of the literature.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
  3. Describing the resource utilisation and costs associated withvertebral fractures: the Build Better Bones with Exercise (B3E) Pilot Trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Trial
  4. Post-fracture care: do we need to educate patients rather than doctors? The PREVOST randomized controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2017
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Secondary fracture prevention in primary care: a narrative 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
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Development and validation of the risk engine for an Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    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

5 authors.

J H E YongCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. yongh@smh.ca.
L MasucciCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. masuccil@smh.ca.
J S HochCentre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), The HUB Health Research Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. hochj@smh.ca.
R SujicMusculoskeletal Health & Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. sujicr@smh.ca.
D BeatonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. beatond@smh.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe cost-effectiveness of a less intensive fracture liaison service is unknown. We evaluated a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring patients for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for 6 years. Our results suggest that a less intensive fracture liaison service, with moderate effectiveness, can still be worthwhile.

introductionFragility fractures are common among older patients; the risk of re-fracture is high but could be reduced with treatments; different versions of fracture liaison service have emerged to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures. But the cost-effectiveness of a less intensive model is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program, a fracture liaison service that had been educating and referring fragility fracture patients across Ontario, Canada to receive bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatments since 2007.

methodsWe developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the program over the patients' remaining lifetime, using rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment and cost of intervention from the program, and supplemented it with the published literature. The analysis took the perspective of a third-party health-care payer. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 % per year. Sensitivity analyses assessed the effects of different assumptions on the results.

resultsThe program improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 4.3 years and led to increased costs of CAD $83,000 for every 1000 patients screened, at a cost of $19,132 per QALY gained. The enhanced model, the Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Fast Track program that includes ordering bone mineral density testing, was even more cost-effective ($5720 per QALY gained).

conclusionsThe Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening program appears to be a cost-effective way to reduce recurrent osteoporotic fractures.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAgedBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedDrug CostsFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedOntarioOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsBone Density Conservation AgentsCost-effectivenessEconomicsFractureFracture liaison serviceOsteoporosisSecondary prevention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.