Yannis Dionyssiotis1, Ruth Marshall2,3, Michael D Stillman4, Leslie R Morse5, Anastasia-Christina Rapidi6. 1. 1st Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, National Rehabilitation Center EKA, Athens, Greece. yannis_dionyssiotis@hotmail.com. 2. South Australian Spinal Cord Injury Service, Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, Lightsview, SA, Australia. 3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, General Hospital G. Gennimatas, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An online survey OBJECTIVES: To describe current clinical practices regarding osteoporosis assessment and management in people with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and compare them to recommended diagnostic tests and interventions. SETTING: An international collaboration surveying professionals working in SCI Medicine. METHODS: Online cross-sectional survey regarding clinical practice trends in the assessment and treatment of osteoporosis in people with SCI. Assessment of whether discrete professional characteristics influenced practices and if those practices were consistent with recommendations from professional organizations. RESULTS: Eighty-two professionals working in SCI Medicine completed the survey. Respondents were equally likely to test for bone loss during the post-acute phase (between 4- and 18-months post injury) and after low impact fracture (41.46% and 42.68%, respectively) and more likely to test during the chronic phase (51.22%). The majority of respondents (n = 56, 70%) assessed bone density with DXA at the hip, and many (48.78%, n = 40) prescribed simultaneous mobilization, vitamin D and calcium to prevent bone loss in the acute, post-acute and chronic phases. A number of evaluations and interventions were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Given that reported practices for detection and treatment of osteoporosis in SCI are inconsistent and not data-driven, there is need for dissemination and adoption of existing clinical practice guidelines.
STUDY DESIGN: An online survey OBJECTIVES: To describe current clinical practices regarding osteoporosis assessment and management in people with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and compare them to recommended diagnostic tests and interventions. SETTING: An international collaboration surveying professionals working in SCI Medicine. METHODS: Online cross-sectional survey regarding clinical practice trends in the assessment and treatment of osteoporosis in people with SCI. Assessment of whether discrete professional characteristics influenced practices and if those practices were consistent with recommendations from professional organizations. RESULTS: Eighty-two professionals working in SCI Medicine completed the survey. Respondents were equally likely to test for bone loss during the post-acute phase (between 4- and 18-months post injury) and after low impact fracture (41.46% and 42.68%, respectively) and more likely to test during the chronic phase (51.22%). The majority of respondents (n = 56, 70%) assessed bone density with DXA at the hip, and many (48.78%, n = 40) prescribed simultaneous mobilization, vitamin D and calcium to prevent bone loss in the acute, post-acute and chronic phases. A number of evaluations and interventions were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Given that reported practices for detection and treatment of osteoporosis in SCI are inconsistent and not data-driven, there is need for dissemination and adoption of existing clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: E Michael Lewiecki; Juliet E Compston; Paul D Miller; Jonathan D Adachi; Judith E Adams; William D Leslie; John A Kanis Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2011 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Leslie R Morse; Fin Biering-Soerensen; Laura D Carbone; Tomas Cervinka; Christopher M Cirnigliaro; Therese E Johnston; Nan Liu; Karen L Troy; Frances M Weaver; Christopher Shuhart; Beverley C Craven Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 2.617