ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2017
Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a general population survey.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2020Pooled it
- Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review.Archives of osteoporosis · 2018Pooled it
- Time to reframe osteoporosis: a position statement to characterize the osteoporosis care gap.JBMR plus · 2026Review
- The Michael Mason prize: development and feasibility testing of a complex intervention to improve adherence to fracture prevention medicine.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Article
- A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Article
- Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Review
- Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Review
- Towards a cure for osteoporosis: the UK Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) Osteoporosis Research Roadmap.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).BMJ open · 2021Article
- Trauma and orthopaedic research is being driven by priorities identified by patients, surgeons, and other key stakeholders.The bone & joint journal · 2021Article
- Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Article
- Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2020Article
- Article
- An observational cohort study to produce and evaluate an improved tool to screen older women with back pain for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (Vfrac): study protocol.Archives of osteoporosis · 2019Article
- Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: Implementation in infection research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is the first national study of public and patient research priorities in osteoporosis and fracture. We have identified new research areas of importance to members of the public, particularly 'access to information from health professionals'. The findings are being incorporated into the research strategy of the National Osteoporosis Society. PURPOSE: This study aimed to prioritise, with patients and public members, research topics for the osteoporosis research agenda.
methodsAn e-survey to identify topics for research was co-designed with patient representatives. A link to the e-survey was disseminated to supporters of the UK National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) in a monthly e-newsletter. Responders were asked to indicate their top priority for research across four topics (understanding and preventing osteoporosis, living with osteoporosis, treating osteoporosis and treating fractures) and their top three items within each topic. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics and item ranking. A latent class analysis was applied to identify a substantive number of clusters with different combinations of binary responses.
resultsOne thousand one hundred eighty-eight (7.4%) respondents completed the e-survey. The top three items overall were 'Having easy access to advice and information from health professionals' (63.8%), 'Understanding further the safety and benefit of osteoporosis drug treatments' (49.9%) and 'Identifying the condition early by screening' (49.2%). Latent class analysis revealed distinct clusters of responses within each topic including primary care management and self-management. Those without a history of prior fracture or aged under 70 were more likely to rate items within the cluster of self-management as important (21.0 vs 12.9 and 19.8 vs 13.3%, respectively).
conclusionThis is the first study of public research priorities in osteoporosis and has identified new research areas of importance to members of the public including access to information. The findings are being incorporated into the research strategy of the National Osteoporosis Society.
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.