ReviewZdravstveno varstvo2026
Osteoporosis Treatment Gap - A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Zdravstveno varstvo, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Osteoporosis is a common metabolic bone disease that increases fracture risk, particularly among older adults, and imposes a substantial global burden. Despite advances in risk assessment and treatment, a large treatment gap remains, with many high-risk individuals not receiving care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of English-language studies published up to April 2025, identified through searches in multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Europe PMC). 43 studies were included. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs and treatment gap definitions, a narrative thematic synthesis was performed. Results: Reported treatment gap estimates varied widely (38.8-94.6%) across countries and study populations. Lower treatment rates were associated with patient factors (male sex, lower socio-economic status, comorbidities) and healthcare system factors (limited physician awareness, institutional barriers, poor interprofessional communication). Higher treatment rates were associated with older age, family history of osteoporosis, prior diagnosis or bone mineral density testing, and participation in structured care programmes. Conclusions: Substantial global treatment gaps in osteoporosis care persist, particularly following fragility fractures. These gaps arise from multiple patient, physician, and system-level factors, with persistent disparities by sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, and socio-economic status. Findings highlight the need for standardised definitions of the treatment gap and suggest areas for future research and intervention development.
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.