Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36598523›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2023

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing future osteoporotic fractures among older adults: a structured scoping review.

Mohammad Auais, Hannah Angermann, Megan Grubb, Christine Thomas, Chengying Feng, Charlene H Chu

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. KIAA1429-mediated MCellular & molecular biology letters · 2025
    Article
  5. Observational
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammad AuaisSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Louise Acton Building, 31 George St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada. mohammad.auais@queensu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3672-5375
Hannah AngermannSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Louise Acton Building, 31 George St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Megan GrubbSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Louise Acton Building, 31 George St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Christine ThomasSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Louise Acton Building, 31 George St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Chengying FengSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Louise Acton Building, 31 George St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Charlene H ChuLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Queen's University · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review described the use, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to prevent future osteoporotic fractures among older adults. Results show that the screening was not superior in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures to usual care. However, it positively influenced participants' perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fractures, and seemed cost-effective. PURPOSE: We aim to provide a synopsis of the evidence about the use of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools to influence health outcomes, including reducing future osteoporotic fractures and their cost-effectiveness.

methodsWe followed the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley and their modifications. A comprehensive search strategy was created to search CINAHL, Medline, and Embase databases until June 29, 2021, with no restrictions. We critically appraised the quality of all included studies.

resultsFourteen studies were included in the review after screening 2484 titles and 68 full-text articles. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the effectiveness of clinical fracture-risk assessment tools in reducing all fractures among older women. Using those assessment tools did not show a statistically significant reduction in osteoporotic fracture risk compared to usual care; however, additional analyses of two of these trials showed a trend toward reducing hip fractures, and the results might be clinically significant. Four studies tested the impact of screening programs on other health outcomes, and participants reported positive results. Eight simulation studies estimated the cost-effectiveness of using these tools to screen for fractures, with the majority showing significant potential savings.

conclusionAccording to the available evidence to date, using clinical fracture-risk assessment screening tools was not more effective than usual care in preventing all osteoporosis-related fractures. However, using those screening tools positively influenced women's perspectives on osteoporosis, may have reduced hip fracture risk, and could potentially be cost-effective. This is a relatively new research area where additional studies are needed.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansRisk AssessmentClinical assessment toolsFracturesOsteoporosisRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID36598523
OpenAlexW4313488092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.