UNLABELLED: We examined osteoporosis diagnosis/treatment in 2,187 community dwelling men age 50+. After five years in the study, 90% of men with fragility fractures remained undiagnosed and untreated for osteoporosis. The need to treat fragility fractures is well established in guidelines, and these numbers represent an important care gap. INTRODUCTION: Whether physicians in the community are recognizing and appropriately treating osteoporosis and fragility fractures in men remains unknown. We examined the rate of diagnosis and treatment in community dwelling men participating in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). METHODS:Between February 1996 and September 2002, 2,187 participants were recruited from nine sites across Canada and prospectively followed. Information on osteoporosis diagnosis, fractures, medications were collected annually by a detailed questionnaire. DXA examination of lumbar spine (L1-4) and hip were conducted at baseline and year five. RESULTS: Diagnosis and treatment in men with clinical fragility fractures was low: at baseline and year five only 2.3% and 10.3% of men with a clinical fracture reported an osteoporosis diagnosis, respectively. At year five, 90% of men with a clinical fragility fracture were untreated. Hip fractures were the most commonly treated (37.5% by year five). A diagnosis of osteoporosis resulted in greater treatment: 67% of participants with diagnosed osteoporosis were treated with a bisphosphonate and 87% were taking calcium and/or vitamin D (year five). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, both a diagnostic and therapeutic gap existed between knowledge and practice related to fragility fractures and osteoporosis in men aged >or=50 years.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: We examined osteoporosis diagnosis/treatment in 2,187 community dwelling men age 50+. After five years in the study, 90% of men with fragility fractures remained undiagnosed and untreated for osteoporosis. The need to treat fragility fractures is well established in guidelines, and these numbers represent an important care gap. INTRODUCTION: Whether physicians in the community are recognizing and appropriately treating osteoporosis and fragility fractures in men remains unknown. We examined the rate of diagnosis and treatment in community dwelling men participating in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). METHODS: Between February 1996 and September 2002, 2,187 participants were recruited from nine sites across Canada and prospectively followed. Information on osteoporosis diagnosis, fractures, medications were collected annually by a detailed questionnaire. DXA examination of lumbar spine (L1-4) and hip were conducted at baseline and year five. RESULTS: Diagnosis and treatment in men with clinical fragility fractures was low: at baseline and year five only 2.3% and 10.3% of men with a clinical fracture reported an osteoporosis diagnosis, respectively. At year five, 90% of men with a clinical fragility fracture were untreated. Hip fractures were the most commonly treated (37.5% by year five). A diagnosis of osteoporosis resulted in greater treatment: 67% of participants with diagnosed osteoporosis were treated with a bisphosphonate and 87% were taking calcium and/or vitamin D (year five). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, both a diagnostic and therapeutic gap existed between knowledge and practice related to fragility fractures and osteoporosis in men aged >or=50 years.
Authors: William G Hawkes; Lois Wehren; Denise Orwig; J Richard Hebel; Jay Magaziner Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Anna M Sawka; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi; Amiram Gafni; David A Hanley; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: A Tenenhouse; L Joseph; N Kreiger; S Poliquin; T M Murray; L Blondeau; C Berger; D A Hanley; J C Prior Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2000 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E Orwoll; M Ettinger; S Weiss; P Miller; D Kendler; J Graham; S Adami; K Weber; R Lorenc; P Pietschmann; K Vandormael; A Lombardi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-08-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J A Kanis; O Johnell; C De Laet; H Johansson; A Oden; P Delmas; J Eisman; S Fujiwara; P Garnero; H Kroger; E V McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; A Silman; A Tenenhouse Journal: Bone Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: H K Genant; S Grampp; C C Glüer; K G Faulkner; M Jergas; K Engelke; S Hagiwara; C Van Kuijk Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Alexandra Papaioannou; Suzanne Morin; Angela M Cheung; Stephanie Atkinson; Jacques P Brown; Sidney Feldman; David A Hanley; Anthony Hodsman; Sophie A Jamal; Stephanie M Kaiser; Brent Kvern; Kerry Siminoski; William D Leslie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: J A M MacNeil; J D Adachi; D Goltzman; R G Josse; C S Kovacs; J C Prior; W Olszynski; K S Davison; S M Kaiser Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: Stephen K Liu; Jeffrey C Munson; John-Erik Bell; Rebecca L Zaha; John N Mecchella; Anna N A Tosteson; Nancy E Morden Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Julie A Womack; Joseph L Goulet; Cynthia Gibert; Cynthia Brandt; Chung Chou Chang; Barbara Gulanski; Liana Fraenkel; Kristin Mattocks; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Janet Tate; Michael T Yin; Amy C Justice Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240