ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2024
Disparities in management of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a nationwide multidisciplinary survey.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predicting residual pain after vertebral augmentation in vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and critical appraisal of risk prediction models.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic decision-making, vertebral augmentation, and osteoporosis therapy in vertebral compression fractures: a narrative review.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- MRI-Based Inter-Vertebral Signal Concordance Index Is a Risk Factor of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: A Novel Index Inspired by Entropy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary management of acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture: results of a national Delphi consensus.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Living with an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a qualitative exploration of patient and healthcare professional perspectives.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Article
- Percutaneous kyphoplasty improves surgical outcomes and quality of life in elderly patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Fractures of the Pelvis and Acetabulum: Novel Insights into Diagnostics and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This nationwide multidisciplinary survey found dissatisfaction among physicians with current osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture care, revealing significant disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up practices. Issues include poor communication and differing guidelines. Improving interdisciplinary collaboration and standardized care strategies is essential for better patient outcomes. PURPOSE: This survey aims to assess current preferred care practices for symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) in the Netherlands, focusing on guideline adherence, identifying knowledge gaps, and clarifying consensus and collaboration across medical disciplines in OVCF treatment.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted via Qualtrics (Provo, UT) using a self-administered online survey distributed to 238 general practitioners and physicians in orthopedics, traumatology, internal medicine, rheumatology, and geriatrics working at 51 hospitals in the Netherlands. The survey, conducted in Dutch, included 36 multiple-choice and two open questions and was accessible via an anonymous email link or QR code. General practitioners received additional questions specific to their role. Data was anonymized, stored securely, and analyzed using descriptive statistics in Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Version 24). Open-ended responses were coded and categorized. The survey was conducted prior to the publication of the updated Federation of Medical Specialists guidelines in 2024.
resultsPhysicians across various disciplines uniformly expressed dissatisfaction with current OVCF care. The survey highlighted significant disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up practices. A lack of communication between primary and secondary care providers and differing guidelines further complicate OVCF management. These issues point to considerable variation in clinical practice and gaps in interdisciplinary collaboration.
conclusionAddressing the identified issues requires fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and creating cohesive care strategies. Ensuring access to diagnostic resources in both primary and secondary care and establishing coordinated care models promises more structured and standardized treatment. These steps are crucial for enhancing patient outcomes in OVCF management.
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.