ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2016
Perception of severe osteoporosis amongst medical doctors in South Korea: Awareness, impact, and treatment.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in Testing and Treatment Methods in Osteoporosis Care.Journal of osteoporosis · 2024Article
- Article
- The secular trends in the use of medications for osteoporosis in South Korea using Intercontinental Medical Statistics Health Sales Audit 2006-2018.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2020Article
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
objectivesLittle is currently known about the issues surrounding management and treatment of severe osteoporosis in South Korea. Our objective was to assess doctors' views on the perception, diagnosis, and treatment of severe osteoporosis.
methodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted (16 February-13 March 2015) with 100 doctors (specialists in orthopedic surgery, endocrinology, neurosurgery, family medicine, or rheumatology) who treated ≥5 severe osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5, plus fracture) patients per month. Respondent demographic characteristics, their perception of severe osteoporosis, its impact and treatment, and their views on current practice and unmet needs were assessed.
resultsOf 416 doctors approached, 100 completed the survey (24% response rate). Most doctors (90%) specialized in orthopedic surgery, endocrinology, or neurosurgery. When diagnosing severe osteoporosis, most doctors (79%) considered both bone mineral density and fracture. Almost all doctors (≥91%) ranked disease impact and seriousness highly, but much fewer (≤25%) doctors thought society agreed. Most doctors (89%) had concerns with current treatments, switching treatments because of the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates (>89%), the efficacy of selective estrogen receptor modulators (>71%), and the high cost of parathyroid hormone (>73%). Parathyroid hormone was ranked highest for efficacy and was preferentially prescribed to severe osteoporosis patients (mean 32.2% of prescriptions) compared with osteoporosis patients overall (3.7%). "Limitations with reimbursement" was the most commonly cited (76%) unmet need.
conclusionsThere are concerns with the safety, efficacy, and affordability of current treatments for severe osteoporosis in South Korea, as well as a perceived lack of disease awareness amongst patients and doctors.
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.