Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893868›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021

Use of an electronic medical record dashboard to identify gaps in osteoporosis care.

A Papaioannou, E McCloskey, A Bell, D Ngui, U Mehan, M Tan, L Goldin, A Langer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  3. Association between trabecular bone score and cardiovascular outcomes: a population-level historical cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  4. FRAX predicts cardiovascular risk in women undergoing osteoporosis screening: the Manitoba bone mineral density registry.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

A PapaioannouMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. papaioannou@hhsc.ca.
E McCloskeyCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
A BellDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
D NguiUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
U MehanMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
M TanCanadian Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
L GoldinCanadian Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A LangerCanadian Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Centre for Family Medicine · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based dashboard, this study explored osteoporosis care gaps in primary care. Eighty-four physicians shared their practice activities related to bone mineral density testing, 10-year fracture risk calculation and treatment for those at high risk. Significant gaps in fracture risk calculation and osteoporosis management were identified. PURPOSE: To identify care gaps in osteoporosis management focusing on Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPG) related to bone mineral density (BMD) testing, 10-year fracture risk calculation and treatment for those at high risk.

methodsThe ADVANTAGE OP EMR tool consists of an interactive algorithm to facilitate assessment and management of fracture risk using CPG. The FRAX® and Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tools were embedded to facilitate 10-year fracture risk calculation. Physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with EMR reminders of guideline recommendations; participants shared practice level data on management activities after 18-month use of the tool.

resultsEighty-four physicians (54%) of 154 who agreed to participate in this study shared their aggregate practice activities. Across all practices, there were 171,310 adult patients, 40 years of age and older, of whom 17,214 (10%) were at elevated risk for fracture. Sixty-two percent of patients potentially at elevated risk for fractures did not have BMD testing completed; most common reasons for this were intention to order BMD later (48%), physician belief that BMD was not required (15%) and patient refusal (20%). For patients with BMD completed, fracture risk was calculated in 29%; 19% were at high risk, of whom 37% were not treated with osteoporosis medications as recommended by CPG.

conclusionDespite access to CPG and fracture risk calculators through the ADVANTAGE OP EMR tool, significant gaps remain in fracture risk calculation and osteoporosis management. Additional strategies are needed to address this clinical inertia among family physicians.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAdultBone DensityCanadaElectronic Health RecordsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCare gapsDecision support toolsElectronic medical recordOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID33893868
PMCPMC8068625
OpenAlexW3155935920

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.