Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34345811›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021

Models of care for osteoporosis: A systematic scoping review of efficacy and implementation characteristics.

Alicia R Jones, Madhuni Herath, Peter R Ebeling, Helena Teede, Amanda J Vincent

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of related fractures in developed economies in the Asia Pacific region: 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alicia R JonesMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia.
Madhuni HerathDepartment of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter R EbelingDepartment of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia.
Amanda J VincentMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia.
Monash Health · AUHudson Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis affects over half of adults over 50 years worldwide. With an ageing population, osteoporosis, fractures and their associated costs are increasing. Unfortunately, despite effective therapies, many with osteoporosis remain undiagnosed and untreated. Models of care (MoC) to improve outcomes include fracture liaison services, screening, education, and exercise programs, however efficacy for these is mixed. The aim of this study is to summarise MoC in osteoporosis and describe implementation characteristics and evidence for improving outcomes.

methodsThis systematic scoping review identified articles via Ovid Medline and Embase, published in English between 01/01/2009 and 15/06/2021, describing MoC for adults aged ≥18 years with, or at risk of, osteoporosis and / or health professionals caring for this group. All included at least one of clinical, consumer or clinician outcomes, with fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) change the primary clinical outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies assessing pharmaceuticals or procedures without other interventions, or insufficient operational details. All study designs were included, with no comparator necessary. Title and abstract were reviewed by two reviewers. Full text review and data extraction was performed by these reviewers for 20% of article and, thereafter by a single author. As the review was predominantly descriptive, no comparator statistics were used.

findings314 articles were identified describing 289 MoC with fracture liaison services

interpretationThis comprehensive review of MoC for osteoporosis demonstrated inconsistent evidence for improving outcomes despite similar types of models. Future studies should include implementation outcomes, consumer and clinician perspectives, and fracture or BMD outcomes with sufficient duration of follow-up. Authors should consider pragmatic trial designs and co-design with clinicians and consumers.

Identifiers

PMID34345811
PMCPMC8319463
OpenAlexW3182086621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.