ReviewJBMR plus2026
Time to reframe osteoporosis: a position statement to characterize the osteoporosis care gap.
Review in JBMR plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the T-Score: A Narrative Clinical Review of Adult Endocrine Osteoporosis Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Implementing Osteoporosis Screening in Hong Kong: A CFIR-Guided Qualitative Study of Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Estimating the Extent of Missed Opportunities for Osteoporosis Treatment Before Hip Fracture Occurrence.Calcified tissue international · 2026Article
- Beyond Fracture Probability: Communicating the Full Consequences of Fracture and Contextualization.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
- Unmet Healthcare Needs and Associated Factors Among Older Adults with Osteoporosis: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 2025 Korea Community Health Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Specialty-based differences in osteoporosis management in Türkiye: a national cross-sectional survey.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporosis, a condition marked by increased fracture risk, remains under-diagnosed and under-treated worldwide, resulting in a substantial "treatment gap"-the difference between those eligible for osteoporosis treatment and those who actually receive it. While the concept of closing the treatment gap is commendable, and has galvanized clinical and policy efforts, this position statement argues that the prevailing narrative is in danger of becoming disease-focused and parentalistic, neglecting person-centered care. An international consensus group, including public contributors with lived experience were convened to define and characterize the "osteoporosis care gap" as a broader framework, encompassing deficits not only in pharmacological treatment but also in diagnosis, assessment, and multi-disciplinary management. The care gap is thus defined as "the discrepancy between the care provided to those at risk of osteoporotic fractures and best practice, person-centered care
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.