Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39808441›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2025

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Leila C Kahwati, Christine E Kistler, Graham Booth, Nila Sathe, Rachel D'Amico Gordon, Ebiere Okah, Roberta C Wines, Meera Viswanathan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A sustained NADBioactive materials · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Screening for Osteoporosis in Nonagenarians: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Leila C KahwatiRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.
Christine E KistlerDivision of Geriatric Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Graham BoothRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.
Nila SatheRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.
Rachel D'Amico GordonDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Ebiere OkahDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
Roberta C WinesRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.
Meera ViswanathanRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UM1TR004405 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Bruce R Blazar, Damien A Fair · 2023 to 2026
$30.8M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS029590NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity. Objective: To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy. Results: Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesMass ScreeningOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPreventive Health ServicesAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleHip FracturesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentSpinal FracturesSystematic Reviews as TopicBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID39808441
PMCPMC12911848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.