ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026
A programmatic approach to osteoporosis treatment: insight from a 20-year longitudinal study.
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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A network meta-analysis of the effects of different aerobic exercise prescriptions on bone density in osteoporosis patients.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Letter comments on: a programmatic approach to osteoporosis treatment: insight from a 20-year longitudinal study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rationale for this research is to analyze the osteoporosis treatment rate over a 20-year period to understand and improve patient care. The main result of the study indicates that patients who were seen in a structured osteoporosis clinic had significantly higher treatment rates compared to the national benchmark. The significance of this model lies in its ability to provide focused osteoporosis care, which can effectively bridge the existing care gap. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis is underserved. We studied the impact of an osteoporosis care program on treatment rates over a 20-year period.
methodsThis retrospective study 2002-2022 analyzed 3- and 5-year osteoporosis treatment trends across seven 3-year time periods. Treatment rates were compared by visit type (Primary Care Physician [PCP] vs. non-PCP [specialty clinic or osteoporosis clinic]), insurance type, gender, and race. Statistical comparisons within each period were made using chi-square, Fisher's exact tests, or logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE).
resultsAmong 44,135 patient records (median age 76), treatment rates declined over time, 73.9% to 56.5% (3-year, p = 0.003) and 72.7% to 47.4% (5-year, p < 0.0001). Osteoporosis clinic had overall similar treatment rates as specialty clinic (3-year: 70.2% vs. 67.2%, p = 0.124; 5-year: 60.2% vs. 57.9%, p = 0.856) but higher rates in time-stratified analysis. The osteoporosis clinic had higher treatment rates than PCP clinics (3-year: 70.2% vs. 56.1%, p < 0.0001; 5-year: 60.2% vs. 48.5%, p < 0.0001). Treatment rates were similar by insurance type and race. Women had higher overall treatment rates than men.
conclusionsOver two decades, our osteoporosis team reported significantly higher treatment rates than national averages. Overall treatment rates were similar between patients seen in osteoporosis and specialty clinic; however, the osteoporosis clinic reported higher rates than the specialty or PCP clinic in time-stratified analysis and PCP clinic overall. Differences in disease severity and treatment receptivity across care settings may have influenced outcomes. Treatment rates were consistent across insurance types,but gender disparities persisted. Conclusions about race were limited by the small non-white population.
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.