ArticleCureus2026
Prescription Behaviors of Primary Care Providers in Osteoporosis Management: A Survey.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Osteoporotic fractures impose a substantial economic burden in the United States. Although multiple pharmacologic therapies reduce fracture risk, variation exists in prescribing patterns. Internal organizational data from our institution demonstrated disproportionate utilization of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid despite substantial cost differences. This study evaluated prescribing attitudes, cost awareness, and determinants influencing primary care providers' osteoporosis medication selection. Methods A cross-sectional survey of primary care providers in New Mexico was conducted from April 18 to May 16, 2022. A convenience and snowball sampling strategy was used. Descriptive statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and chi-square testing were performed for subgroup analysis. An internal document review to determine relative acquisition costs of denosumab and zoledronic acid, and a limited literature review on this topic, were also conducted. Results Seventy-two providers responded (36% response rate). Although 75% reported prescribing denosumab more frequently, 48.6% incorrectly believed denosumab was similarly priced or less expensive than zoledronic acid. Only 26% correctly identified denosumab as much more expensive. Advanced practice clinicians underestimated costs more frequently than physicians (71% vs. 38%, χ²=6.36, p=0.012). Providers practicing >10 years also demonstrated significant underestimation (51.9%). Conclusion Primary care providers frequently underestimate the cost of denosumab despite reporting that cost influences prescribing decisions. Even long-practicing physicians demonstrated substantial misperception of drug pricing. Improved access to real-time cost information may promote more cost-effective osteoporosis management.
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.