Literature DB >> 14668497

Older women with fractures: patients falling through the cracks of guideline-recommended osteoporosis screening and treatment.

Adrianne C Feldstein1, Gregory A Nichols, Patricia J Elmer, David H Smith, Mikel Aickin, Michael Herson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many older patients with fractures are not managed in accordance with evidence-based clinical guidelines for osteoporosis. Guidelines recommend that these patients receive treatment for clinically apparent osteoporosis or have bone mineral density measurements followed by treatment when appropriate. This cohort study was conducted to further characterize the gap between guidelines and actual practice with regard to bone mineral density measurement and treatment of older women after a fracture. Our purpose was to aid in the design of more effective future interventions.
METHODS: We identified female members of a not-for-profit group-model health maintenance organization who were fifty years of age or older and who had a diagnosis of a new fracture as defined in the study. We used administrative databases and the clinical electronic medical records to obtain data on demographics, diagnoses, drugs dispensed by the pharmacy, and the measurement of bone mineral density.
RESULTS: The study population included 3812 women with an average age of 71.3 years. Fewer than 12% of the women had a diagnosis of osteoporosis prior to the index fracture; 10.7% had an increased risk for secondary osteoporosis and 38.8%, for falls because of a diagnosis or medication. It was found that 46.4% of the study population had been managed as specified by clinical guidelines. The patients who had been managed as specified by the guidelines were younger and less likely to have the risk factor of a weight of <127 lb (58 kg), a hip fracture, or a wrist fracture. They were also more likely to be taking steroids on a chronic basis and to have had a vertebral fracture. The percentage of women who had measurement of bone mineral density increased during the study period, from 1.3% in 1998 to 10.2% in 2001. Of the patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis, 73.6% adhered to the treatment regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines for evaluation and treatment for osteoporosis after a patient sustained a fracture did not improve between 1998 and 2001 despite the promulgation of evidence-based guidelines. Methods to enhance education and facilitate processes of care will be necessary to reduce this gap. It may be fruitful to target high-risk subgroups for tailored interventions for prevention of refracture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14668497

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  36 in total

1.  A population-based study of osteoporosis testing and treatment following introduction of a new bone densitometry service.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Leonard MacWilliam; Lisa Lix; Patricia Caetano; Gregory S Finlayson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-10-02       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  The knowledge-to-action cycle: identifying the gaps.

Authors:  Alison Kitson; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-11-30       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Correlates of use of antifracture therapy in older women with low bone mineral density.

Authors:  Kathryn M Ryder; Ronald I Shorr; Frances A Tylavsky; Andrew J Bush; Douglas C Bauer; Eleanor M Simonsick; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Tamara B Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  A randomized study of two different information-based interventions on the management of osteoporosis in minimal and moderate trauma fractures.

Authors:  D Bliuc; J A Eisman; J R Center
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-06-21       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap in women: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  L-A Fraser; G Ioannidis; J D Adachi; L Pickard; S M Kaiser; J Prior; J P Brown; D A Hanley; W P Olszynski; T Anastassiades; S Jamal; R Josse; D Goltzman; A Papaioannou
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Practice patterns in patients at risk for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Patricia J Elmer; Gregory A Nichols; Michael Herson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-03       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Initiation of osteoporosis assessment in the fracture clinic results in improved osteoporosis management: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  J M Queally; C Kiernan; M Shaikh; F Rowan; D Bennett
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Effect of IV contrast on lumbar trabecular attenuation at routine abdominal CT: correlation with DXA and implications for opportunistic osteoporosis screening.

Authors:  P J Pickhardt; T Lauder; B D Pooler; A Muñoz Del Rio; H Rosas; R J Bruce; N Binkley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Incidence and mortality of hip fracture among the elderly population in South Korea: a population-based study using the national health insurance claims data.

Authors:  Hye-Young Kang; Kyu-hyeon Yang; Yoon Nam Kim; Seong-hwan Moon; Won-Jung Choi; Dae Ryong Kang; Seong Eun Park
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies.

Authors:  P M Ciaschini; S E Straus; L R Dolovich; R A Goeree; K M Leung; C R Woods; G M Zimmerman; S R Majumdar; S Spadafora; L A Fera; H N Lee
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.