ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021
Multidisciplinary expert consensus on secondary fracture prevention in Spain.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Primary care follow-up of patients after attending a fracture liaison service: an integrative review.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Pooled it
- Cancer-Related Pain Management in Suitable Intrathecal Therapy Candidates: A Spanish Multidisciplinary Expert Consensus.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to achieve expert consensus to optimize secondary fracture prevention in Spain. Relevant gaps in current patient management were identified. However, some aspects were considered difficult to apply. Future efforts should focus on those items with greatest divergences between importance and feasibility. PURPOSE: To establish a Spanish multidisciplinary expert consensus on secondary fracture prevention.
methodsA two-round Delphi consensus was conducted, guided by a Scientific Committee. The 43-item study questionnaire was designed from a literature review and a subsequent multidisciplinary expert group (n = 12) discussion. The first-round questionnaire, using a 7-point Likert scale, assessed the experts' opinion of the current situation, their wish for items to happen, and their prognosis that items would be implemented within 5 years. Items for which consensus was not achieved were included in the second round. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement or ≥ 75% disagreement. A total of 102 experts from 14 scientific societies were invited to participate.
resultsA total of 75 (response rate 73.5%) and 69 (92.0%) experts answered the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. Participants mean age was 51.8 years [standard deviation (SD): 10.1 years]; being 24.0% rheumatologists, 21.3% primary care physicians, 14.7% geriatricians, 8.0% internal medicine specialists, 8.0% rehabilitation physicians, and 8.0% gynecologists. Consensus was achieved for 79.1% of items (wish, 100%; prognosis, 58.1%). Effective secondary prevention strategies identified as requiring improvement included: clinical report standardization, effective hospital primary care communication (telephone/mail and case managers), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires use, and treatment compliance monitoring (prognosis agreement 33.3%, 47.8%, 18.8%, and 55.1%, respectively).
conclusionA consensus was reached by health professionals in their wish to implement strategies to optimize secondary fracture prevention; however, they considered some difficult to apply. Efforts should focus on those items with currently low application and those with greatest divergence between wish and prognosis.
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.