Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32103393›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2020

General and Specific Considerations as to why Osteoporosis-Related Care Is Often Suboptimal.

Elizabeth M Curtis, Stephen Woolford, Claire Holmes, Cyrus Cooper, Nicholas C Harvey

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Dietary Behaviors, Serum 25(OH)D Levels and Quality of Life in Women with Osteoporotic Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Osteoporosis in 2022: Care gaps to screening and personalised medicine.Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Fracture liaison services in Ireland-how do we compare to international standards?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
  17. Neuroendocrine neoplasia and bone (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth M CurtisMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. bc@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Stephen WoolfordMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Claire HolmesRheumatology Department, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Cyrus CooperMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nicholas C HarveyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Southampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/33/04Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Versus Arthritis 21231Wellcome Trust 201222/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe assessment of fracture risk and use of antiosteoporosis medications have increased greatly over the last 20-30 years. However, despite this, osteoporosis care remains suboptimal worldwide. Even in patients who have sustained a fragility fracture, fewer than 20% actually receive appropriate antiosteoporosis therapy in the year following the fracture. There is also evidence that treatment rates have declined substantially in the last 5-10 years, in many countries. The goal of this article is to consider the causes for this decline and consider how this situation could be remedied. RECENT

findingsA number of possible reasons, including the lack of prioritisation of osteoporosis therapy in ageing populations with multimorbidity, disproportionate concerns regarding the rare side effects of anti-resorptives and adverse changes in reimbursement in the USA, have been identified as contributing factors in poor osteoporosis care. Improved secondary prevention strategies; screening measures (primary prevention) and appropriate, cost-effective guideline and treatment threshold development could support the optimisation of osteoporosis care and prevention of future fractures.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAbsorptiometry, PhotonBisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the JawBone Density Conservation AgentsClinical CompetenceCost-Benefit AnalysisFemoral FracturesGuideline AdherenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyHumansMultimorbidityOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary PreventionBone Density Conservation AgentsAdverse effectsEpidemiologyFractureOsteoporosisPolicyTreatment gap

Identifiers

PMID32103393
PMCPMC7067731
OpenAlexW3008510030

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.