↓ Skip to main content

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
89 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
123 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
415 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
377 Mendeley
Title
Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2018
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.7498
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan J. Curry, Alex H. Krist, Douglas K. Owens, Michael J. Barry, Aaron B. Caughey, Karina W. Davidson, Chyke A. Doubeni, John W. Epling, Alex R. Kemper, Martha Kubik, C. Seth Landefeld, Carol M. Mangione, Maureen G. Phipps, Michael Pignone, Michael Silverstein, Melissa A. Simon, Chien-Wen Tseng, John B. Wong

Abstract

By 2020, approximately 12.3 million individuals in the United States older than 50 years are expected to have osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures, particularly hip fractures, are associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain and disability, loss of independence, and decreased quality of life, and 21% to 30% of patients who experience a hip fracture die within 1 year. The prevalence of primary osteoporosis (ie, osteoporosis without underlying disease) increases with age and differs by race/ethnicity. With the aging of the US population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years. To update the 2011 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for osteoporosis. The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fractures in men and women, as well as risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in subgroups. The screening population was postmenopausal women and older men with no known previous osteoporotic fractures and no known comorbid conditions or medication use associated with secondary osteoporosis. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests are accurate for detecting osteoporosis and predicting osteoporotic fractures in women and men. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that clinical risk assessment tools are moderately accurate in identifying risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that drug therapies reduce subsequent fracture rates in postmenopausal women. The USPSTF found that the evidence is inadequate to assess the effectiveness of drug therapies in reducing subsequent fracture rates in men without previous fractures. The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in women 65 years and older. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years at increased risk of osteoporosis, as determined by a formal clinical risk assessment tool. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent osteoporotic fractures in men. (I statement).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 123 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 377 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 377 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 10%
Researcher 36 10%
Other 34 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 8%
Student > Postgraduate 29 8%
Other 85 23%
Unknown 124 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 10%
Engineering 11 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 36 10%
Unknown 141 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 770. 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 26 May 2023.
All research outputs
#25,786
of 25,834,578 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#593
of 36,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#504
of 343,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#7
of 346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,834,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 343,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.