ArticleJBMR plus2021
Knowledge and Needs of Resident Physicians Regarding Osteoporosis: A Nationwide Survey of Residents.
Article in JBMR plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of DXA findings on general practitioners' decision regarding first-line oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporosis-data from French General Practice (the IMOGENE study).Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- The Recognition-to-Practice Gap: Physicians' Approaches to Osteoporosis Assessment and Management in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- The global burden of vertebral fractures caused by falls among individuals aged 55 and older, 1990 to 2021.PloS one · 2025Article
- Reply on "Identification of people with high risk of osteoporosis in Asia".Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale studies have not addressed the knowledge level of US resident physicians regarding osteoporosis management. We gauged the knowledge level of family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians regarding osteoporosis management. In 2019, we sent an anonymous survey via e-mail to all program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology for distribution to resident physicians. Knowledge items assessed osteoporosis screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We received responses from 182 family medicine, 275 internal medicine, and 122 obstetrics and gynecology programs. Of 582 resident physician respondents, 31% were family medicine residents, 47% were internal medicine residents, and 21% were obstetrics and gynecology residents. Although 77% of respondents correctly selected the
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.