ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024
Should major trauma fractures be part of a fracture liaison service's remit: a cost-benefit estimate.
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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- First fracture in rheumatoid arthritis: analysis by fracture site, gender, age, and comorbidities.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The refracture rate after major trauma is approximately half (57%) the refracture rate after a minimal trauma injury. Extending Fracture Liaison Service activity to include major trauma patients creates significant additional direct cost, but remains essentially cost neutral if notional savings through refracture risk reduction are taken into account. PURPOSE: To compare the 3-year refracture rate following minimal trauma (MT) and non-minimal trauma (non-MT) injuries and evaluate the cost of extending fracture liaison service (FLS) operations to non-MT presentations.
methodsPatients aged 50, or above presenting to the John Hunter Hospital with a fracture in calendar year 2018 were identified through the Integrated Patient Management System (IPMS) of the Hunter New England Health Service's (HNEHS), and re-presentation to any HNEHS facility over the following 3 years monitored. The refracture rate of MT and non-MT presentations was compared and analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. The cost of including non-MT patients was estimated through the use of a previously conducted micro-costing analysis. The operational fidelity of the FLS to the previous estimate was confirmed by comparing the 3-year refracture rate of MT presentations in the two studies.
resultsThe 3-year refracture rate following a MT injury was 8% and after non-MT injury 4.5%. Extension of FLS activities to include non-MT patients in 2022 would have cost an additional $198,326 AUD with a notional loss/saving of $ - 26,625/ + 26,913 AUD through refracture risk reduction. No clinically available characteristic at presentation predictive of increased refracture risk was identified.
conclusionThe 3-year refracture after a non-MT injury is about half (57%) that of the refracture rate after a MT injury. Extending FLS activity to non-MT patients incurs a significant additional direct cost but remains cost neutral if notional savings gained through reduction in refracture risk are taken into account.
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.