ArticleJournal of bone metabolism2019
Use of Bone Turnover Markers in Clinical Practice for the Management of Osteoporosis in Korea: From the Survey on the Prescription Pattern of Bone Turnover Markers.
Article in Journal of bone metabolism, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-Individual Changes in Total Procollagen-Type 1 N-terminal Propeptide in a Korean Adult Population.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Review of the Potential Application of Osteocyte-Related Biomarkers, Fibroblast Growth Factor-23, Sclerostin, and Dickkopf-1 in Predicting Osteoporosis and Fractures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been interest in the clinical potential of bone turnover markers (BTMs) as tools both for assessing fracture risk and for monitoring treatment. However, the practical use of BTMs has been limited by their biological variability and difficulties in the interpretation of results. We investigated the current situation of application of BTMs by clinicians in Korea for the management of osteoporosis through a survey asking the patterns of BTMs prescription in clinical practice.
methodsThe survey was conducted online using the "google survey" by the BTM committee authorized by the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
resultsTotal 108 clinicians responded the survey. Most of the respondents prescribed BTMs (80.6%) when they prescribed anti-osteoporotic medications (AOMs). The most frequently prescribed bone resorption and formation markers were serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (90.7%) and osteocalcin (65.1%), respectively. BTMs were mostly prescribed before starting AOMs (90.8%) and used for the purpose of evaluating treatment response (74.4%). Treatment response and compliance to AOMs were evaluated according to the change of absolute value of BTMs (55.1%). The respondents complained difficulties in the interpretation of BTMs (33.3%), the choice of proper BTMs (17.2%), and the proper sample preparation and handling (13.8%).
conclusionsIn Korea, most of clinicians recognized the benefit of BTMs in the management of osteoporosis. However, there are limitations in the broad use of these markers in clinical practice. Therefore, a clear recommendation for BTM in Korea enhances their use in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.