| Title |
Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Osteoporosis International, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00198-016-3643-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. F. Axelsson, R. Jacobsson, D. Lund, M. Lorentzon |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to investigate if a 2-year intervention with a minimal resource fracture liaison service (FLS) was associated with increased investigation and medical treatment and if treatment was related to reduced re-fracture risk. The FLS started in 2013 using existing secretaries (without an FLS coordinator) at the emergency department and orthopaedic wards to identify risk patients. All patients older than 50 years of age with a fractured hip, vertebra, shoulder, wrist or pelvis were followed during 2013-2014 (n = 2713) and compared with their historic counterparts in 2011-2012 (n = 2616) at the same hospital. Re-fractures were X-ray verified. A time-dependent adjusted (for age, sex, previous fracture, index fracture type, prevalent treatment, comorbidity and secondary osteoporosis) Cox model was used. The minimal resource FLS increased the proportion of DXA-investigated patients after fracture from 7.6 to 39.6 % (p < 0.001) and the treatment rate after fracture from 12.6 to 31.8 %, which is well in line with FLS types using the conventional coordinator model. Treated patients had a 51 % lower risk of any re-fracture than untreated patients (HR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.37-0.65 p < 0.001). We found that our minimal resource FLS was effective in increasing investigation and treatment, in line with conventional coordinator-based services, and that treated patients had a 51 % reduced risk of new fractures, indicating that also non-coordinator based fracture liaison services can improve secondary prevention of fractures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,050,328
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#1,888
of 3,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,030
of 338,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#24
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.