Trial reportDer Orthopade2017
[Compliance of osteoporosis patients with additional specific osteoporosis-training course].
Trial report in Der Orthopade, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- [Osteoporosis-risk evaluation and case finding].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the present study patients with an osteoporotic fracture were examined in order to determine how many patients decided to continue their therapy as outpatients having taken part in osteoporosis training at the Dr. Becker Rhein-Sieg Clinic. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who had previously suffered an osteoporotic fracture and thereafter received inpatient rehabilitation were selected for the study. Patients (n = 95) who had taken part in inpatient rehabilitation after an osteoporotic fracture were approached either via telephone or mail and were then followed up after 6 and 12 months with regard to their adherence to the treatment.
resultsFrom a total of 95 patients, after 6 months 82 % (n = 78) were contacted successfully and included in the study. 68 out of 78 patients (72 %) had continued their medication. After 1 year 76 % of patients (n = 72) were successfully contacted once. Here, 62 % of patients (n = 59) had continued their medication under medical supervision. In the 1‑year follow-up period there were eight cases of falls, and one of these resulted in a peripheral fracture, which was treated conservatively.
conclusionOsteoporosis-specific information and osteoporosis training of patients after osteoporotic fracture are important tools to improve the motivation and compliance of patients. One possibility to realize this is osteoporosis-specific training with video presentations and individual care and education of the patients within outpatient or inpatient rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27807608What 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.