ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2023
The osteoporosis treatment gap in Switzerland between 1998 and 2018.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-fracture care and predictors of anti-osteoporotic treatment in Switzerland: a nationwide health claims analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Prediction of 10-Year Fragility Fractures Using Muscle Health Indicators in Postmenopausal Women: The OsteoLaus Cohort.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Article
- Differences in femoral fracture localizations in men and women in Switzerland between 1998 and 2021-reversal of the secular trend?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The annual number of patients treated for osteoporosis between 1998 and 2018 in Switzerland increased until 2008 and steadily decreased thereafter. With a continuously growing population at fracture risk exceeding an intervention threshold, the treatment gap has increased and the incidence of hip fractures has stopped declining in the past decade.
introductionThe existence of an osteoporosis treatment gap, defined as the percentage of patients at risk for osteoporotic fractures exceeding an intervention threshold but remaining untreated, is widely acknowledged. Between 1998 and 2018, new bone active substances (BAS) indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis became available. Whether and if so to what extent these new introductions have altered the treatment gap is unknown.
methodsThe annual number of patients treated with a BAS was calculated starting from single-drug unit sales. The number of patients theoretically eligible for treatment with a BAS was estimated based on four scenarios corresponding to different intervention thresholds (one based solely on a bone mineral density T score threshold and three FRAX-based thresholds) and the resulting annual treatment gaps were calculated.
resultsIn Switzerland, the estimated number of patients on treatment with a BAS increased from 35,901 in year 1998 to 233,381 in year 2018. However, this number grew regularly since 1998, peaked in 2008, and steadily decreased thereafter, in timely coincidence with the launch of intravenous bisphosphonates and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab. When expressed in numbers of untreated persons at risk for osteoporotic fractures exceeding a given intervention threshold, the treatment gaps were of similar magnitude in 1998 (when the first BSAs just had become available) and 2018. There was a strong association, which does not imply causation, between the proportion of patients treated and hip fracture incidence.
conclusionIn Switzerland, the osteoporosis treatment gap has increased over the past decade. The availability of new BAS has not contributed to its decrease.
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.