ArticleBJGP open2024
Bone health assessment in adults with fragility fracture risk factors between 2002-2014: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time to reframe osteoporosis: a position statement to characterize the osteoporosis care gap.JBMR plus · 2026Review
- The prospective association between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and risk of incident fractures in the general population.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLifetime risk of fragility fractures is 50% in post-menopausal women and 20% in men aged >50 years. Identifying people at high risk facilitates early intervention and reduction of biopsychosocial morbidity associated with these fractures.
aimTo explore if bone health assessment (BHA) rates differ between women and men aged ≥50 years with fragility fracture risk factors. DESIGN &
settingA primary care-based cohort study in North Staffordshire, UK.
methodPatients were identified from the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA) database between 2002 and 2014 with one or more fragility fracture risk factors (previous fractures, falls, and prolonged steroid use). Evaluation of BHA within 12 months of presentation of the first risk factor was carried out by searching for codes for fracture risk assessment tools (FRAX and QFracture), bone density measurement, specialist service referral, or if bone-protection medication was started.
resultsA total of 15 581 patients with risk factors were identified; men represented 40.4% of the cohort. The study found 1172 (7.5%) had BHA performed within 1 year of presentation, and 8.9% of women and 5.5% of men had BHAs, which was found with strong statistical evidence (χ
conclusionThis study has shown that rates of BHA were generally low and even lower in men compared with women. Primary care clinicians should be alert to fragility fracture risk factors in both men and women to enable early assessment and intervention.
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.