ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2019
What information can the lay public find about osteoporosis treatment? A descriptive study coding the content and quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the quality of information on osteoporosis: a cross-sectional analysis of online health information.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Quality and Content of Internet-Based Information for Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Diagnoses.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021Article
- Quality appraisal of educational websites about osteoporosis and bone health.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Article
- A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Older Womens' Attitudes Toward Osteoporosis Medications: Adapting a Health Communication Framework.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite its effectiveness, bisphosphonate use for osteoporosis is low. We assessed bisphosphonate information on the internet and found the most commonly listed benefits/risks were bone density loss, gastrointestinal issues, and jaw necrosis, that risk quantification was rare, and information quality varied. Findings underscore the importance of clinical communication about bisphosphonates.
introductionThe US Preventative Services Task Force recommends osteoporosis screening and treatment with bisphosphonates in high-risk populations. However, bisphosphonate use among individuals with osteoporosis remains low. The content and quality of information from outside sources may influence individuals' bisphosphonate decisions. Therefore, we sought to assess the content and quality of osteoporosis treatment information available to the public by conducting an internet search and coding available bisphosphonate information.
methodsEleven search terms about osteoporosis and bisphosphonates were entered into four search engines. Two raters assessed websites for information about bisphosphonates, whether and how benefits and side effects were described and quantified, contraindications, and dosing instructions. Coders also assessed website interface and slant/balance of information.
resultsOne thousand four hundred seventy-three websites were identified. Two hundred twenty-seven websites met inclusion criteria and were coded. The most common bisphosphonate benefit described was prevention of bone density loss (77.1% of websites). The most common side effects described were gastrointestinal problems (66.1%) and jaw osteonecrosis (58.6%). Most websites did not quantify bisphosphonate benefits (78.0%) or side effects (82.4%). Complementary/integrative health websites (p < .001) and pharmaceutical litigation websites (p < .001) were more often slanted against taking bisphosphonates, compared to all websites coded. General medical knowledge websites were more balanced than other websites (p = .023).
conclusionsThe quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet varies substantially. Providers counseling patients about osteoporosis treatment should inquire about patients' baseline bisphosphonate knowledge. Providers can complement accurate information and address potential bisphosphonate misconceptions.
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.