Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31782030›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2019

Quality Measures and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Osteoporosis-an Update.

S French, S Choden, Gabriela Schmajuk

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

S FrenchDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 4150 Clement St, Rm 111R, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA.
S ChodenDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 4150 Clement St, Rm 111R, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA.
Gabriela SchmajukDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 4150 Clement St, Rm 111R, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA. Gabriela.Schmajuk@ucsf.edu.

Funding

ACADEMIC RHEUMATOLOGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGYT32AR007304 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DAIKH, DAVID I · 1986 to 2018
$6.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR007304
6 · The paper itself

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

Quality ImprovementAbsorptiometry, PhotonAccidental FallsBone Density Conservation AgentsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Healthcare DisparitiesHumansOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveRisk AssessmentUnited StatesBone Density Conservation AgentsFallsMACRA/MIPSMedicareOsteoporosisQuality improvementQuality measure

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.