Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27647529›Full record

Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2017

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with tailored fracture risk tool delivered via a patient portal.

A J Smallwood, M M Schapira, M Fedders, J M Neuner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A quasi-experimental study about shared decision-making and motivational interviewing on patients with a recent fracture attending Fracture Liaison Services.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Understanding patients' preferences for osteoporosis treatment: the impact of patients' characteristics on subgroups and latent classes.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A J SmallwoodCenter for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. asmallwood@mcw.edu.
M M SchapiraDivision of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
M FeddersClinical Informatics, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
J M NeunerCenter for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Medical College of Wisconsin · USFroedtert Hospital · USPhiladelphia VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We tested the feasibility of a fracture prevention decision aid in an online patient portal. The decision aid was acceptable for patients and successfully decreased decisional conflict. This study suggests the possible utility of leveraging the patient portal to enhance patient education and decision making in osteoporosis care.

introductionAlthough interventions have improved osteoporosis screening and/or treatment for certain populations of high-risk patients, recent national studies suggest that large-scale uptake of these interventions has been limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a patient portal-based osteoporosis decision aid (DA).

methodsWe conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of primary care patients aged ≥55 who were enrolled in a patient portal and had a T-score of <-1. Intervention subjects were provided a link to a patient DA. The DA contained a 10-year fracture risk calculator, summary of medication risks and benefits (prescription and nonprescription), and an elicitation of values. Subjects completed questionnaires assessing the primary outcomes of decisional conflict and preparation for decision making and secondary outcomes related to feasibility and planning for a larger trial. Charts were reviewed for physician-subject interactions and medication uptake.

resultsThe DA was acceptable to subjects, but 17 % of the patients in the decision aid arm incorrectly entered their T-scores into FRAX-based risk calculator. Decisional conflict was lower post-intervention for those who were randomized to the decision aid arm compared to controls (17.8 vs. 47.1, p < .001), and there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients who made a treatment decision at 3 months. No significant differences were observed in medication uptake.

conclusionsA portal-based osteoporosis DA was acceptable and improved several measures of decision quality. Given its effect on improving the quality of patients' decisions, future studies should examine whether it improves physician guideline adherence or medication adherence uptake among treated patients.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedBone Density Conservation AgentsDecision MakingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesPatient ParticipationPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSingle-Blind MethodBone Density Conservation AgentsDecision aidsOsteoporosisPatient portalPersonalized riskShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID27647529
OpenAlexW2523707224

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.