ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2015
Evaluation of Patients' Response Toward Osteoporosis Letter Intervention Versus Phone Call Plus Letter Intervention.
Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-fracture care programs for prevention of subsequent fragility fractures: a literature assessment of current trends.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 interventions in prompting patients to obtain osteoporosis follow-up after a fracture. Our hypothesis was that a phone call plus letter would yield greater response toward osteoporosis evaluation versus a letter alone to patients after sustaining a fragility fracture. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective study randomized 141 patients age 50 years and older with a fragility fracture into 3 groups for comparison. Group 1 (letter only) patients received a letter 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture indicating their risk for osteoporosis and urging them to follow-up for evaluation. Group 2 (phone call plus letter) patients were contacted via phone 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture. A letter followed the phone call. Group 3 (control) patients were neither contacted via phone nor sent a letter. All groups were contacted via phone 6 months after their initial visit to determine if they followed up for evaluation.
resultsIn group 1, 23 (52.27%) of 44 had follow-up, and 21 (47.73%) of 44 did not follow-up. In group 2, 30 (62.5%) of 48 had follow-up, and 18 (37.50%) of 48 did not follow-up. In group 3, 6 (12.24%) of 49 had some sort of follow-up, and 43 (87.76%) of 49 did not have any follow-up. A statistical significance was achieved between group 3 (control) and both groups 1 and 2 with regard to follow-up (P < .0001). The results did not show a statistically significant difference between Groups 1 and 2, however, there was a trend toward improved response with a phone call plus letter (P = .321).
conclusionA more personalized approach with a phone call plus follow-up letter to patients increased osteoporosis follow-up care by an additional 10%, however, this was not a statistically significant difference from just sending out a letter alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.