Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31443711›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review.

Michelle Gates, Jennifer Pillay, Guylène Thériault, Heather Limburg, Roland Grad, Scott Klarenbach, Christina Korownyk, Donna Reynolds, John J Riva, Brett D Thombs and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle GatesAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Jennifer PillayAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada. jpillay@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6086-7229
Guylène ThériaultDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Heather LimburgGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Roland GradDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Scott KlarenbachDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Christina KorownykDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Donna ReynoldsDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
John J RivaDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Brett D ThombsFaculty of Medicine, McGill University and Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
Gregory A KlineDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
William D LeslieDepartment of Medicine (Endocrinology), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Susan CourageGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Ben VandermeerAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Robin FeatherstoneAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAMcGill University · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CAImpact · CAJewish General Hospital · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making.

methodsA modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force. DISCUSSION: Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdultAdvisory CommitteesAgedBone Density Conservation AgentsCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentBone Density Conservation AgentsFragility fracturesGuidelineScreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31443711
PMCPMC6706906
OpenAlexW2969408141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.