Trial reportBMJ open2017
Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Use of antiosteoporotic medication in the Danish ROSE population-based screening study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019Trial
- Article
- Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Observational
- Is a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis applicable in clinical practice? Consensus among a panel of European experts.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020Article
- At Odds About the Odds: Women's Choices to Accept Osteoporosis Medications Do Not Closely Agree with Physician-Set Treatment Thresholds.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Effects of interleukin-7/interleukin-7 receptor on RANKL-mediated osteoclast differentiation and ovariectomy-induced bone loss by regulating c-Fos/c-Jun pathway.Journal of cellular physiology · 2018Article
- Osteoporosis in 2017: Addressing the crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2018Review
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe accuracy of patients' perception of risk is important for decisions about treatment in many diseases. We framed the risk of fracture and benefits of treatment in different ways and assessed the impact on patients' perception of fracture risk and intentions to take medication.
designRandomised trial of 4 different presentations of fracture risk and likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment.
settingAcademic centre.
participants200 patients undergoing bone densitometry.
interventionPresentation that framed the patient's absolute fracture risk either as the chance of having or not having an event, with their likely benefits from osteoporosis treatment in natural frequencies or numbers needed to treat. OUTCOMES: Participants' views about their fracture risk and the need for osteoporosis treatment.
resultsThe median 5-year fracture risk threshold participants regarded as high enough to consider preventative medication was 50-60%, and did not change substantially after the presentation. The median (Q1, Q3) 5-year risk initially estimated by participants was 20% (10, 50) for any fracture and 19% (10, 40) for hip fracture. 61% considered their fracture risk was low or very low, and 59-67% considered their fracture risk was lower than average. These participant estimates were 2-3 times higher than Garvan calculator estimates for any fracture, and 10-20 times higher for hip fracture. Participant estimates of fracture risk halved after the presentation, but remained higher than the Garvan estimates (1.5-2 times for any fracture, 5-10 times for hip fracture). There was no difference in these outcomes between the randomised groups. Participants' intentions about taking medication to prevent fractures were not substantially affected by receiving information about fracture risk and treatment benefits.
conclusionsAltering the framing of estimated fracture risks and treatment benefits had little effect on participants' perception of the need to take treatment or their individual fracture risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001081707; Pre-results.
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.