Evidence mapPaperPMID 38494549Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024

The yield of routine laboratory examination in osteoporosis evaluation in primary care.

Thomas Merlijn, Karin M A Swart, Christy Niemeijer, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Coen J Netelenbos, Petra J M Elders

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas MerlijnDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.merlijn@merlijnenvandoorn.zorgring.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3003-6488
Karin M A SwartDepartment Research, PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2521-5780
Christy NiemeijerStichting Artsen Laboratorium en Trombosedienst, Koog Aan de Zaan, Zaanstad, The Netherlands.
Henriëtte E van der HorstDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-4354
Coen J NetelenbosDepartment of Internal Medicine, Endocrine Section, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8303-6185
Petra J M EldersDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5907-7219
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLPharmo Institute · NLStichting Artsenlaboratorium en Trombosedienst · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the yield of routine laboratory examination in a large population of older women in primary care. The prevalence of laboratory abnormalities was low and the clinical consequences in follow-up were limited. There was a weak association of laboratory abnormalities with osteoporosis but no association with vertebral fractures and recent fractures. PURPOSE: Most osteoporosis guidelines advice routine laboratory examination. We have investigated the yield of laboratory examinations in facture risk evaluation of elderly women in primary care.

methodsWe assessed the prevalence of laboratory abnormalities and their association with risk factors for fractures, recent fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD), and prevalent vertebral fracture in 8996 women ≥ 65 years of age participating in a primary care fracture risk screening study. In a sample of 2208 of these participants, we also evaluated the medical consequences in the medical records during a follow-up period of ≥ 1 year.

resultsVitamin D deficiency (< 30 nmol/L) was present in 13% and insufficiency (< 50 nmol/L) in 43% of the study sample. The prevalence of other laboratory abnormalities (ESR, calcium, creatinine, FT4) was 4.6% in women with risk factors for fractures, 6.1% in women with low BMD (T-score ≤  - 2.5), 6.0% after a prevalent vertebral fracture, 5.2% after a recent fracture and 2.6% in the absence of important risk factors for fractures. Laboratory abnormalities other than vitamin D were associated with low BMD (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.8) but not with prevalent vertebral fractures nor recent fractures. Low BMD was associated with renal failure (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.4), vitamin D insufficiency (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.3) and deficiency (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-.5). In the follow-up period, 82% of the laboratory abnormalities did not result in a new diagnosis or treatment reported in the medical records.

conclusionsWe identified a low prevalence of laboratory abnormalities in a primary care population of older women and the majority of these findings had no medical consequences.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneOsteoporosisSpinal FracturesAgedBone DensityFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareVitamin DVitaminsVitamin DVitaminsBone densityClinical chemistry testsFracturesOsteoporosisPrimary health careVitamin D deficiency

Identifiers

PMID38494549
PMCPMC11031471
OpenAlexW4392925108

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.