Observational studyAtencion primaria2018
[Adequacy of treatment for osteoporosis in primary prevention. Quantitative and qualitative study].
Observational study in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveQuantitative study: To assess the prevalence of inadequacy of treatment for osteoporosis in primary prevention (OPP) in women aged 60-74years. Qualitative study: To evaluate the diagnostic and treatment criteria of the OPP and it's variability in primary care physicians (PC) and specialists. MATERIAL AND
methodsQuantitative study: observational, cross-sectional and retrospective study. POPULATION: women aged 60-74years with active treatment for OPP (n=424) in May 2012. Inadequacy if they had ≤2 risk factors with a DXA or DXA T-score ≥-2.4. Qualitative study: Delphi technique (15items) and two rounds of consultation. PERIOD: March-April 2014. POPULATION: PC physicians, rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons (n=251). Random sampling.
resultsQuantitative study: degree of inadequacy is 63.4%. In 43.2% isn't mention a diagnosis of osteoporosis. In 82.3% there isn't mention of risk factors. TREATMENT: bisphosphonate 40.3% and calcium +vitaminD 47.9%. Qualitative study: 23% respond to the first round, and of these 67% the second round. Items with higher agreement were the important of the evaluation of risk factors for diagnosis and bisphosphonates for treatment. Items with fewer consensuses were using the FRAX and densitometry and treatment with only calcium +vitaminD.
conclusionsThe percentage of inadequacy is high. The degree of registration in medical history is low. The Delphi method is useful for detecting discrepancies between recommendations of clinical practice guidelines and 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.