Trial reportJournal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research2019
A Comparison of US and Canadian Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Postmenopausal Women.
Trial report in Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Bone organic matrix quality indices associate with fragility fracture occurrence independently of bone mineral density values.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Calcium carbonate supplementation exacerbated gut microenvironment disruption in senile osteoporosis mice.iScience · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk score-guided personalized osteoporosis screening: a population-based study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Osteoporotic fractures in adults under 65 without prior indications for BMD testing: a call to reevaluate screening guidelines.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Raloxifene Ameliorates Glucosamine-Induced Insulin Resistance in Ovariectomized Rats.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Influence of osteoporosis on the compressive properties of femoral cancellous bone and its dependence on various density parameters.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Is There a Role for CT Pan-Scans in the Initial Workup of Fragility Fracture Patients?Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports.Current osteoporosis reports · 2019Review
- Material properties and osteoporosis.F1000Research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal approach to osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women is unclear. We compared (i) the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Osteoporosis Canada osteoporosis screening strategies; and (ii) the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) and Canadian treatment strategies. We used data from the prospective Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials of women aged 50 to 79 years at baseline (n = 117,707 followed for self-reported fractures; n = 8134 in bone mineral density [BMD] subset). We determined the yield of the screening and treatment strategies in identifying women who experienced major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) during a 10-year follow-up. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, 23.1% of women were identified for BMD testing under the USPSTF strategy and 52.3% under the Canadian strategy. For women ≥65 years, 100% were identified for testing under the USPSTF and Canadian strategies, 35% to 74% were identified for treatment under NOF, and 16% to 37% were identified for treatment under CAROC (range among 5-year age subgroups). Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, the USPSTF strategy identified 6.7% of women 50 to 54 years-old and 49.5% of women 60 to 64 years-old for BMD testing (versus 54.4% and 60.6% for the Canadian strategy, respectively). However, the specificity of the USPSTF strategy was higher than that of the Canadian strategy among women 50 to 64 years-old. Among women who experienced MOF during follow-up, sensitivity for identifying women as treatment candidates was lowest for both strategies in women aged 50 to 64 (NOF 10% to 38%; CAROC 1% to 15%) and maximal in 75-year-old to 79-year-old women (NOF 82.8%; 51.6% CAROC); specificity declined with advancing age and was lower with the NOF compared to the CAROC strategy. Among women aged 50 to 64 years, the screening and treatment strategies examined had low sensitivity for identifying those who subsequently experience MOF; sensitivity was higher among women ≥65 years than among younger women. New screening and treatment algorithms are needed. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
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.