ArticleJournal of bone metabolism2020
Physicians' Attitudes on Management of Osteopenia in South Korea.
Article in Journal of bone metabolism, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteopenia patients have a risk of fracture and may develop osteoporosis. We investigated physicians' management of osteopenia patients in South Korea.
methodsA survey was conducted using a questionnaire including 6 items: (1) do you think anti-osteoporosis medications are necessary in osteopenia patients?; (2) what is your preference to manage osteopenia patients, except for anti-osteoporosis medications?; (3) what is your indication for the anti-osteoporosis medication in osteopenia patients?; (4) what kind of anti-osteoporosis medication do you prefer to treat osteopenia patients?; (5) do you use bisphosphonates?; and (6) if not, what is the reason for not using?.
resultsAmong the 173 participants, 150 (86.7%) replied that anti-osteoporosis medications were necessary in osteopenia patients. Indications for the medication were (1) past medical history of pathologic fracture in 85 (49.1%); (2) T-score <-2.5 on dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in 73 (42.2%); (3) previous history of osteoporosis in 44 (25.4%); (4) risk of fracture according to fracture risk assessment tool in 34 (19.7%); and (5) progressive bone loss in 31 (17.9%). One hundred and sixteen (67.1%) favored bisphosphonates, 93 (53.8%) selective estrogen-receptor modulator, and 24 (13.9%) hormone replacement therapy. Thirty-one (17.9%) replied that they do not use bisphosphonates due to (1) restricted reimbursement by the health insurance in 24 (77.4%); and (2) bisphosphonate-related complications in 19 (61.3%).
conclusionsMost respondents (86.7%) thought anti-osteoporosis medications were necessary in osteopenia patients, but 17.9% of the respondents did not use bisphosphonates. Restricted reimbursement by the national health insurance was the major obstacle against the use of bisphosphonates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.