ArticleSaudi medical journal2025
Osteoporosis screening practice at the National Guard affiliated primary care centers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2025. 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.
- Insurance Coverage and Distribution of DXA Screening in Saudi Arabia: Evidence from Major Healthcare Settings.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis Screening in Primary Care: Early Implementation Gaps Following the 2023 Saudi Guideline Update.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Gaps in Community-Based Screening for Non-Communicable Diseases in Saudi Arabia.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the use of osteoporosis screening tests in average-risk individuals at primary healthcare centers affiliated with the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 2016 and 2023.
methodsData were presented using frequencies n (%), mean, and standard deviation. Chi-square, t-test, and ANOVA tests were used for bivariate comparisons to evaluate test completion and prevalence estimates of osteopenia and osteoporosis. Binary logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with high odds of bone mineral density (BMD) test ordering and completion. For all analyses, a
resultsWe retrieved and analyzed data from 5,965 unique women. Analysis showed 4,075 BMD order requests; only 1,017 (25%) orders were completed by 894 women, representing only 15% of all women included in this study. Osteoporosis was found in 274 (26.9%) tests and osteopenia in 540 tests (53.1%). Factors like patient's age, facility, number of outpatient visits, ordering staff title, and year of order were assessed to predict high utilization and completion of BMD test.
conclusionThis research showed that although osteoporosis is a serious public health concern causing significant morbidity and mortality, there is still a gap in osteoporosis screening practices within primary care settings. Also, it sheds light on some factors that may predict physicians' high utilization of BMD tests and patients' completion rates.
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.