Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35152304›Full record

ArticleCalcified tissue international2022

Communicating Absolute Fracture Risk Reduction and the Acceptance of Treatment for Osteoporosis.

Katherine A P Ralston, Jonathan Phillips, Amrey Krause, Barbara Hauser, Stuart H Ralston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Calcified tissue international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Review
  2. Medicines and society: systemic change needed to address overprescribing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  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

5 authors.

Katherine A P RalstonMedicine for the Elderly, NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Jonathan PhillipsCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Amrey KrauseEdinburgh Parallel Computing Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Barbara HauserCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Stuart H RalstonCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. stuart.ralston@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-7586

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare professionals frequently communicate the benefits of treatments as a relative risk reduction (RRR) in the likelihood of an event occurring. Here we evaluated whether presenting the benefits of osteoporosis treatment as a RRR in fractures compared with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) changed the patient's attitudes towards accepting treatment. We surveyed 160 individuals attending a specialised osteoporosis clinic for face-to-face consultations between May 2018 and Jan 2021. They were presented with information on RRR for the treatment being considered followed by ARR and after each question were asked about how likely they would be to start treatment on a 5-point scale (1 = very likely, 5 = very unlikely). Participants were less likely to accept treatment when it was presented as ARR (mean score 2.02 vs. 2.67, p < 0.001, 95% CI for difference - 0.82 vs - 0.47) and thirty-eight participants (23.7%) declined treatment with knowledge of their ARR when they would have accepted the same treatment based on the RRR. Individuals who declined treatment had a lower 5-year risk of fracture than those who accepted treatment (9.0 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 5.0 to - 1.6) and as fracture risk decreased, the participant was less likely to accept treatment (Spearman r - 0.32, 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.17, p ≤ 0.001). Whilst presentation of data as ARR more accurately reflects individual benefit and helps facilitate shared decision-making, clinicians should be aware that this will lead to a proportion of patients with lower fracture risk declining treatment for osteoporosis.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneOsteoporosisHumansNumbers Needed To TreatRiskRisk Reduction BehaviorBisphosphonatesDecision aidsFracture riskOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID35152304
PMCPMC9108104

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.