OBJECTIVE: Numerous guidelines advise about management of osteoporosis, but little research has been conducted on their recommendations. We analysed recommendations on management of bone health in clinical guidelines. DESIGN: We surveyed recommendations on assessment, treatment and monitoring of bone health in 78 clinical guidelines (22 primary focus osteoporosis, 56 primary focus not osteoporosis) lodged at the Agency for Health Research and Quality National Guidelines Clearinghouse between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/2014. MEASUREMENTS: Governance of guidelines; discussion of fracture risk in the target population; recommendations for assessment, treatment and monitoring of bone health. RESULTS: Only 14% of guidelines discussed fracture risk in the target population. When guidelines discussed assessment, 98% recommended bone mineral density (BMD) measurement but only 27% recommended estimation of fracture risk. When guidelines discussed treatment, 63-71% recommended calcium and/or vitamin D, while <12% recommended avoiding low body weight or smoking cessation. When guidelines discussed intervention, 53% did so on the basis of BMD measurement, and only 27% on the basis of estimated fracture risk. When guidelines discussed monitoring, >90% recommended BMD measurements, and only 3% recommended estimation of fracture risk. About 65% of guidelines that suggested a BMD monitoring interval recommended one of ≤3 years. Compared to guidelines with a primary focus on osteoporosis, guidelines whose primary focus was not osteoporosis were less likely to discuss fracture risk in the target population (2% vs 45%), recommend estimation of fracture risk (11% vs 55%) and recommend intervention on the basis of estimated fracture risk (10% vs 67%) (all P < 0·005). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a strong focus in clinical guidelines on BMD, a surrogate measure, rather than fracture risk, the clinically important outcome, particularly when bone health is not the primary focus. Addressing this issue might facilitate more rational use of resources and improve patient care.
OBJECTIVE: Numerous guidelines advise about management of osteoporosis, but little research has been conducted on their recommendations. We analysed recommendations on management of bone health in clinical guidelines. DESIGN: We surveyed recommendations on assessment, treatment and monitoring of bone health in 78 clinical guidelines (22 primary focus osteoporosis, 56 primary focus not osteoporosis) lodged at the Agency for Health Research and Quality National Guidelines Clearinghouse between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/2014. MEASUREMENTS: Governance of guidelines; discussion of fracture risk in the target population; recommendations for assessment, treatment and monitoring of bone health. RESULTS: Only 14% of guidelines discussed fracture risk in the target population. When guidelines discussed assessment, 98% recommended bone mineral density (BMD) measurement but only 27% recommended estimation of fracture risk. When guidelines discussed treatment, 63-71% recommended calcium and/or vitamin D, while <12% recommended avoiding low body weight or smoking cessation. When guidelines discussed intervention, 53% did so on the basis of BMD measurement, and only 27% on the basis of estimated fracture risk. When guidelines discussed monitoring, >90% recommended BMD measurements, and only 3% recommended estimation of fracture risk. About 65% of guidelines that suggested a BMD monitoring interval recommended one of ≤3 years. Compared to guidelines with a primary focus on osteoporosis, guidelines whose primary focus was not osteoporosis were less likely to discuss fracture risk in the target population (2% vs 45%), recommend estimation of fracture risk (11% vs 55%) and recommend intervention on the basis of estimated fracture risk (10% vs 67%) (all P < 0·005). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a strong focus in clinical guidelines on BMD, a surrogate measure, rather than fracture risk, the clinically important outcome, particularly when bone health is not the primary focus. Addressing this issue might facilitate more rational use of resources and improve patient care.
Authors: L Chou; P Shamdasani; A M Briggs; F M Cicuttini; K Sullivan; K L M D Seneviwickrama; A E Wluka Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 4.507