Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32405912›Full record

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

Characterization of fracture liaison service non-responders after invitation by home visits and questionnaires.

P van den Berg, P M M van Haard, P P Geusens, J P van den Bergh, D H Schweitzer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    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

5 authors.

P van den BergDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma surgery, Fracture Liaison Service, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands. pberg@rdgg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3791-5816
P M M van HaardDepartment of Medical Laboratories, Association of Clinical Chemistry, Reinier the Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands.
P P GeusensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Subdivision Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J P van den BerghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Subdivision Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
D H SchweitzerDepartment of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Reinier the Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to gain insight in specific characteristics and beliefs of FLS non-responders.

introductionThe proportion of non-responding fracture liaison service (FLS) invitees is high but characteristics of FLS non-responders are unknown.

methodsWe contacted FLS non-responders by telephone to consent with home visit (HV) and to fill in a questionnaire or, if HV was refused, to receive a questionnaire by post (Q), to gain insight in beliefs on fracture cause and subsequent fracture risk.

resultsOut of 716 FLS invitees, 510 attended, nine declined, and 197 did not respond. Of these non-responders, 181 patients were consecutively traced and phoned until 50 consented with HV. Forty-two declined HV but consented with Q. Excluded were eight Q-consenters in whom no choice was offered (either HV or Q) and 81 patients who declined any proposition (non-HV|Q). 62% HV and Q could recall the FLS invitation letter. The fracture cause was differently believed between HV and Q; the fall (96% versus 79%, p = .02), bad physical condition (36% versus 2%, p = .0001), dizziness or imbalance (24% versus Q 7%, p = .03), osteoporosis (16% versus 2%, p = .02), and increased fracture risk (26% versus 17%, NS). Age ≥ 70, woman, and major fracture were significantly associated with HV consent compared to Q (OR 2.7, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively) and HV compared to non-HV|Q (OR 16.8, 5.3, and 6.1).

conclusionFLS non-responders consider fracture risk as low. Note, 50 patients (about 25%) consented with a home visit after one telephone call, mainly older women with a major fracture. This non-responder subgroup with high subsequent fracture risk is therefore approachable for secondary fracture prevention.

Indexed as

House CallsOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAgedBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleHumansSecondary PreventionSurveys and QuestionnairesBone Density Conservation AgentsFLSHome visitNon-attendanceNon-respondenceOsteoporosisQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID32405912

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.