Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31838551›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2020

Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

T Merlijn, K M A Swart, H E van der Horst, J C Netelenbos, P J M Elders

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Updated practice guideline for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. CT image-based biomarkers for opportunistic screening of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Clinical practice guideline for management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Canada: 2023 update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Screening for Osteoporosis in Nonagenarians: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Barriers and solutions for global access to osteoporosis management: a Position Paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T MerlijnAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
K M A SwartAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
H E van der HorstAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
J C NetelenbosAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , Department of Internal Medicine, Endocrine Section, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
P J M EldersAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.elders@amsterdamumc.nl.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of (major) osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures after screening using fracture risk assessment and bone densitometry compared with usual care. The results indicate that screening is effective for fracture risk reduction, especially hip fractures. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of population screening for high fracture risk on fracture prevention compared with usual care. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies published until June 20th 2019. Randomized studies were selected that screened for high fracture risk using at least bone densitometry, screened in a general population, provided subsequent treatment with anti-osteoporosis medication, had a usual care group as comparator, and had at least one fracture-related outcome (all fractures, (major) osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures). The primary assessment was the hazard ratio (HR) for fracture-related outcomes. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled HRs. We identified 1186 potentially eligible articles and included three randomized studies: the ROSE study, the SCOOP study, and the SOS with a total number of N = 42,009 participants. Respectively, 11%, 15%, and 18% of the participants in the intervention group started medication. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction of osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.89-1.00), major osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.84-0.98), and hip fractures (HR = 0.80; 95%CI = 0.71-0.91), but no reduction of all fractures (HR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.89-1.02). The pooled HR for the secondary outcome all-cause mortality was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.95-1.14). Numbers needed to screen to prevent one fracture were 247 and 272 for osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures, respectively (corresponding to 113 and 124 performed bone densitometry examinations, and 25 and 28 persons being treated). This meta-analysis showed that population screening is effective to reduce osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures. Implementation of screening in older women should be considered as serious option to prevent osteoporotic fractures, especially hip fractures.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMass ScreeningProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentFracture preventionFracture risk assessmentMeta-analysisOsteoporosisScreening

Identifiers

PMID31838551
PMCPMC7010619
OpenAlexW2996681284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.