Observational studyAtencion primaria2026
[Adequacy of pharmacological prescriptions in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis attended in a Primary Care center].
Observational study in Atencion primaria, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the adequacy of pharmacological prescriptions for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women attending primary care.
designCross-sectional descriptive observational study.
settingPrimary care health center, Castilla-La Mancha Health Service.
participantsThere were 61 postmenopausal women who were prescribed anti-osteoporotic drugs in 2021. Medical records were reviewed up to December 2024. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: According to the SESCAM Pharmacotherapeutic Optimization Guide (2019), pharmacological prescriptions were considered appropriate (adequate) if at least one of the following criteria was met: a history of prior osteoporotic fractures and/or «high risk» of fracture with bone mineral density in the osteoporosis range (T-score <-2.5). Drugs were considered first-line if alendronate or risedronate was prescribed.
resultsThe therapeutic indication was «adequate» in 47 patients (77.0%), being higher in patients with diagnostic bone mineral density (68.1% vs. 31.9%, P<0.001), «high fracture risk» (93.0% vs. 7.0%, P=0.002), those who had previously received other antiosteoporotic drugs (59.6% vs. 40.4%, P=0.012), and those receiving concomitant calcium and/or vitamin D supplements (89.4% vs. 10.6%, P=0.026). The mean 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk was higher (P=0.008) in the «adequate» indication group (18.2%) vs. the «non-adequate» group (9.9%). Adequate therapeutic indication was lower when prescriptions were issued by general practitioners compared with other specialists (19.1% vs. 80.9%; P <0.001). The drug was first-line in 34 patients (55.7%).
conclusionsAdequacy of pharmacological prescriptions for osteoporosis was moderate, being higher for the therapeutic indication than for the first-line drug.
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.