Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35064844›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2022

Prevalence of FRAX risk factors and the osteoporosis treatment gap among women ≥ 70 years of age in routine primary care across 8 countries in Europe.

Eugene McCloskey, Jeetandera Rathi, Stephane Heijmans, Mark Blagden, Bernard Cortet, Edward Czerwinski, Peyman Hadji, Juraj Payer, Kerry Palmer, Robert Stad and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Eugene McCloskeyCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. E.V.McCloskey@sheffield.ac.uk.
Jeetandera RathiCarrig Medical Centre, Cork, Ireland.
Stephane HeijmansResearchLink, Linkebeek, Belgium.
Mark BlagdenAshgate Medical Practice, Chesterfield, UK.
Bernard CortetDepartment of Rheumatology and EA 4490, University-Hospital of Lille, Lille, France.
Edward CzerwinskiDepartment of Bone and Joint Diseases, FHS, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 32, 31-501, Krakow, Poland.
Peyman HadjiFrankfurt Center of Bone Health, Frankfurt, Germany.
Juraj PayerFaculty of Medicine, 5th Department of Internal Medicine in University Hospital Bratislava, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Kerry PalmerAmgen Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Robert StadAmgen Europe GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
James O'KellyAmgen Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
Socrates PapapoulosLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Amgen (United Kingdom) · GBAmgen (Switzerland) · CHCardiovascular Center Frankfurt · DEComenius University Bratislava · SKJagiellonian University · PLLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We studied whether elderly women at risk for fractures receive primary care treatment to prevent fracture. We found that across Europe, women at risk are often not identified, and less than half of such women receive appropriate treatment. Finally, women diagnosed with osteoporosis are much more likely to receive treatment. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between risk factors for fragility fracture (FF) and osteoporosis (OP) treatment gap in elderly women across Europe, and compare the prevalence of risk factors between countries.

methodsDemographic and clinical information was collected from women ≥ 70 years visiting primary care physicians in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the UK. Increased risk of FF was defined by the presence of 1 or more criteria (history of fracture, 10-year fracture probability, or T-score ≤  - 2.5).

resultsThere were 3798 women in total. Treatment gap (proportion at increased risk of FF not receiving treatment for OP) varied from 53.1 to 90.8% across countries, and the proportion of patients at increased risk of FF varied from 41.2 to 76.1%. Across countries, less than 50% of patients with increased risk of FF had a diagnosis of OP. Previous fracture was the most common risk factor, with similar prevalence across most countries; other risk factors varied widely. The treatment gap was reduced in patients with an OP diagnosis in all countries, but this reduction varied from 36.5 to 79.4%. The countries with the lowest rates of bone densitometry scans (Poland, France, and Germany; 8.3-12.3%) also had the highest treatment gap (82.2 to 90.8%).

conclusionsThis study highlights differences across Europe in clinical risk factors for fracture, rates of densitometry scanning, and the rates of OP diagnosis. More emphasis is needed on risk assessment to improve the identification and treatment of elderly women at risk for fracture.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAgedBone DensityEuropeFemaleHumansPrevalencePrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsFracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)Fragility fractureObservational studyOsteoporosisRisk factorsTreatment gap

Identifiers

PMID35064844
PMCPMC8783912
OpenAlexW4207060880

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.