Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32860546›Full record

ReviewArchives of osteoporosis2020

Updated approach for the management of osteoporosis in Turkey: a consensus report.

Yeşim Kirazlı, Funda Atamaz Çalış, Özlem El, Yeşim Gökçe Kutsal, Özlen Peker, Dilsad Sindel, Şansın Tuzun, Dilek Gogas Yavuz, Berrin Durmaz, Ülkü Akarirmak and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of osteoporosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Osteoporosis: Spotlight on current approaches to pharmacological treatment.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Yeşim KirazlıDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. yesim.kirazli@gmail.com.
Funda Atamaz ÇalışDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
Özlem ElDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
Yeşim Gökçe KutsalDepartment of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey.
Özlen PekerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
Dilsad SindelDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Şansın TuzunDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dilek Gogas YavuzDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Berrin DurmazDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
Ülkü AkarirmakDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Hatice BodurDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty of Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
Vedat HamuryudanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, İstanbul University Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul, Turkey.
Umit Incebozİrenbe Obstetrics and Gynecology IVF Center, İzmir, Turkey.
Sema ÖncelDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
Dokuz Eylül University · TREge University · TRIstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa · TRAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt University · TRHacettepe University · TRIstanbul University · TRMarmara University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a result of the current demographics, increased projections of osteoporosis (OP) and prevalence of the disease in Turkey, a panel of multidisciplinary experts developed a thorough review to assist clinicians in identifying OP and associated fracture risk patients, diagnosing the disease with the appropriate available diagnostic methods, classifying the disease, and initiating appropriate treatment. The panel expects to increase the awareness of this prevalent disease, decrease consequences of OP with corresponding cost savings and, ultimately, decrease the overall burden of OP and related fractures in Turkey.

backgroundOP is not officially accepted as a chronic disease in Turkey despite the high prevalence and predicted increase in the following years. However, there are areas where the country is performing well, such as having a country-specific fracture risk assessment model, DXA access, and the uptake of FRAX. Additional efforts are required to decrease the existing treatment gap estimating 75-90% of patients do not receive pharmacological intervention for secondary prevention, and the diagnosis rate is around 25%.

methodsA selected panel of Turkish experts in fields related to osteoporosis was provided with a series of relevant questions to address prior to the multi-day conference. Within this conference, each narrative was discussed and edited by the entire group, through numerous drafts and rounds of discussion until a consensus was achieved. Represented in the panel were a number of societies including The Turkish Osteoporosis Society, The Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism of Turkey (SEMT), and The Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

resultsStandardized general guidelines to identify OP and related fractures and at-risk population in Turkey, which will enable clinicians to accurately and effectively diagnose the disease, treat the appropriate patients with available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and decrease the burden of the disease.

conclusionsThis manuscript provides a review of the current state of OP and related fractures in Turkey. Moreover, this manuscript reviews current international guidelines and national studies and proposes a number of helpful country-specific classifications that can be used by healthcare providers caring for the at-risk population. Additionally, the panel proposes practical recommendations that should be implemented nationally in order to decrease the burden of OP and related fractures and effectively preventing the burden in future generations.

Indexed as

Bone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsCalciumDietary SupplementsFractures, BoneHumansMaleOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPractice Guidelines as TopicPrevalenceRisk AssessmentSocieties, MedicalTreatment OutcomeTurkeyVitamin DBone Density Conservation AgentsCalciumVitamin DDiagnosis of osteoporosisFracture risk assessmentFRAXTreatment of osteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID32860546
PMCPMC7456410
OpenAlexW3081613390

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.