ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2026
Specialty-based differences in osteoporosis management in Türkiye: a national cross-sectional survey.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study showed significant specialty-based differences in osteoporosis management in Türkiye. Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians demonstrated the highest awareness, whereas orthopedic physicians demonstrated the lowest. Guideline use, rather than seniority, was associated with better awareness, supporting targeted education and wider fracture liaison services (FLS) implementation. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare adherence to current guidelines, clinical approaches, and awareness levels among physicians in internal medicine (IM), PM&R, and orthopedics and traumatology who are actively involved in osteoporosis management in Türkiye.
methodsA total of 447 physicians from across Türkiye were included (122 IM, 203 PM&R, and 122 orthopedic physicians). A questionnaire was used to evaluate approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. An osteoporosis awareness score was calculated as the mean of guideline-based awareness items (Cronbach's α = 0.890). Data were analyzed using the chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multivariable linear regression.
resultsAwareness scores differed significantly across specialties (p < 0.001). The median (IQR) score was highest in PM&R physicians at 4.00 (3.75-4.25), followed by IM physicians at 3.50 (3.00-4.00) and orthopedic physicians at 2.88 (2.00-3.50). Significant between-specialty differences were also observed in diagnostic evaluation, pre-treatment laboratory assessment, denosumab preference, planning of treatment transition after discontinuation, and follow-up strategies (all p < 0.05). In multivariable regression analysis, specialty (B = 0.782, p < 0.001) and active guideline use (B = 0.344, p < 0.001) were the strongest independent predictors of awareness score, whereas years of professional experience and academic title were not significant.
conclusionOsteoporosis management in Türkiye differs substantially by specialty. Lower concordance with guideline-based care among orthopedics and traumatology physicians may contribute to the treatment gap. Guideline-oriented education should therefore be prioritized over professional seniority, and multidisciplinary FLS should be further expanded.
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.