Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33462652›Full record

Observational studyOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2021

Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study.

C S Liu, A L Feasel, G A Kline, E O Billington

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C S LiuUndergraduate Medical Education, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
A L FeaselDr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre, Alberta Health Services, Richmond Road Diagnostic & Treatment Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
G A KlineDr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre, Alberta Health Services, Richmond Road Diagnostic & Treatment Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
E O BillingtonDr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre, Alberta Health Services, Richmond Road Diagnostic & Treatment Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. emma.billington@albertahealthservices.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2556-588X
Alberta Health Services · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Group medical visits for osteoporosis can improve access to care while being highly accepted by patients. In this study, a similar proportion of women planned to initiate pharmacotherapy after attending a group or traditional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation, indicating that the group consultation model does not produce unexpected treatment decisions.

introductionGroup medical consultations for osteoporosis are time-efficient and highly accepted by patients, but effects on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to compare women's decisions to initiate or decline osteoporosis pharmacotherapy after attending either a group or transitional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation.

methodsIn this observational study, we prospectively evaluated postmenopausal women referred to an osteoporosis clinic who attended a group medical visit and compared their decisions regarding pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment with retrospective data from a cohort of women who attended a traditional consultation. Both consultation types involved interaction with a specialist physician, individualized fracture risk estimation (using FRAX®), and education regarding fracture consequences and available osteoporosis medications. Both forms of consultation emphasized shared decision-making; however, group consultation attendees did not receive personalized treatment recommendations from the physician.

resultsWe reviewed the records of 125 women (median age 63 years) who attended a group consultation and 83 women (median age 64 years) who attended a traditional consultation between 2016 and 2019. Twenty-four (19%) of the group cohort and 16 (19%) of the traditional cohort were at high 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture (FRAX® ≥ 20.0%). A similar proportion planned to initiate pharmacologic therapy after the group and traditional consultations (23% vs 16%, p = 0.22); these proportions were comparable among women at high risk (42% vs 50%, p = 0.75) and moderate risk (19% vs 15%, p = 0.77), but a higher proportion of low-risk women planned to initiate therapy after the group consultation (18% vs 0%, p = 0.009).

conclusionPatient decisions to initiate pharmacologic treatment made during a group visit are similar to those made during traditional one-on-one consultation. The group consultation model represents an alternative to one-on-one assessment for delivering osteoporosis consultative services.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesBone DensityCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPostmenopauseReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsFracture risk assessmentGroup medical visitOsteoporosisPatient educationShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33462652
OpenAlexW3121879786

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.