ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2019
Quality Measures and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Osteoporosis-an Update.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Observational Study of Post-hip Fracture Outcomes in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Trends in incidence of recorded diagnosis of osteoporosis, osteopenia, and fragility fractures in people aged 50 years and above: retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
- Geriatric fracture program centering age-friendly care associated with lower length of stay and lower direct costs.Health services research · 2023Article
- Post-fracture care programs for prevention of subsequent fragility fractures: a literature assessment of current trends.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Review
- Rates of Osteoporosis Management and Secondary Preventative Treatment After Primary Fragility Fractures.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe aims of this review are to summarize current performance for osteoporosis quality measures used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) for pay-for-performance programs and to describe recent quality improvement strategies around these measures. RECENT
findingsHealthcare Effectiveness Data and Information (HEDIS) quality measures for the managed care population indicate gradual improvement in osteoporosis screening, osteoporosis identification and treatment following fragility fracture, and documentation of fall risk assessment and plan of care between 2006 and 2016. However, population-based studies suggest achievement for these process measures is lower where reporting is not mandated. Performance gaps remain, particularly for post-fracture care. Elderly patients with increased comorbidity are especially vulnerable to fractures, yet underperformance is documented in this population. Gender and racial disparities also exist. As has been shown for other areas of health care, education alone has a limited role as a quality improvement intervention. Multifactorial and systems-based interventions seem to be most successful in leading to measurable change for osteoporosis care and fall prevention. Despite increasing recognition of evidence-based quality measures for osteoporosis and incentives to improve upon performance for these measures, persistent gaps in care exist that will require further investigation into sustainable and value-adding quality improvement interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31782030What 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.