↓ Skip to main content

Consensus on best practice standards for Fracture Liaison Service in the Asia-Pacific region

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Osteoporosis, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Consensus on best practice standards for Fracture Liaison Service in the Asia-Pacific region
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11657-018-0463-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ding-Cheng (Derrick) Chan, Lo-Yu Chang, Kristina E. Akesson, Paul Mitchell, Chung-Hwan Chen, E. Michael Lewiecki, Joon Kiong Lee, Tang Ching Lau, Thawee Songpatanasilp, Kin Bong Lee, Kwang Joon Kim, Jung-Fu Chen, Ko-En Huang, Yih-Lan Gau, Yin-Fan Chang, Peter Ebeling, Weibo Xia, Wei Yu, Atsushi Suzuki, Fen Lee Hew, Leilani B. Mercado-Asis, Yoon-Sok Chung, Keh-Sung Tsai, Gau-Tyan Lin, Rong-Sen Yang, Chih-Hsing Wu

Abstract

The Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) Consensus Meeting endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies (AFOS), and Asia Pacific Osteoporosis Foundation (APOF) was hosted by the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association on October 14, 2017. International and domestic experts reviewed the 13 Best Practice Framework (BPF) standards and concluded that all standards were generally applicable in the Asia-Pacific region and needed only minor modifications to fit the healthcare settings in the region. To review and generate consensus on best practices of fracture liaison service (FLS) in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. In October 2017, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association (TOA) invited experts from the AP region (n = 23), the Capture the Fracture Steering Committee (n = 2), and the USA (n = 1) to join the AP region FLS Consensus Meeting in Taipei. After two rounds of consensus generation, the recommendations on the 13 Best Practice Framework (BPF) standards were reported and reviewed by the attendees. Experts unable to attend the on-site meeting reviewed the draft, made suggestions, and approved the final version. Because the number of FLSs in the region is rapidly increasing, experts agreed that it was timely to establish consensus on benchmark quality standards for FLSs in the region. They also agreed that the 13 BPF standards and the 3 levels of standards were generally applicable, but that some clarifications were necessary. They suggested, for example, that patient and family education be incorporated into the current standards and that communication with the public to promote FLSs be increased. The consensus on the 13 BPF standards reviewed in this meeting was that they were generally applicable and required only a few advanced clarifications to increase the quality of FLSs in the region.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 48%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,608,252
of 23,073,835 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Osteoporosis
#269
of 648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,490
of 325,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Osteoporosis
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,073,835 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 325,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.