Facilitated bone mineral density testing versus hospital‐based case management to improve osteoporosis treatment for hip fracture patients: Additional results from a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We previously demonstrated that a case manager intervention improved osteoporosis (OP) treatment within 6 months of hip fracture compared with usual care. The second phase of the randomized trial compared a less intensive intervention, facilitated bone mineral density (BMD) testing, with usual care and the case manager intervention. METHODS: We initially randomized 220 hip fracture patients to either an OP case manager intervention or usual care. After completing the original trial at 6 months postfracture, usual care patients were reallocated to facilitated BMD testing; BMD tests were arranged and results sent to primary care physicians. Main outcomes (bisphosphonate treatment, BMD tests, receipt of appropriate care) were reascertained 1 year following hip fracture and compared with outcomes achieved by the OP case manager intervention and usual care. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, facilitated BMD testing increased testing from 29% to 68% (P < 0.001), bisphosphonate use from 22% to 38% (P < 0.001), and receipt of appropriate care from 26% to 45% (P < 0.001). The more intensive (70 versus 30 minutes) and expensive ($56 versus $24 Canadian per patient) OP case manager intervention led to significantly higher bisphosphonate use (54% versus 38%; P = 0.03), receipt of appropriate care (71% versus 45%; P < 0.001), and more BMD testing (80% versus 68%; P = 0.06) than usual care followed by facilitated BMD testing. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, 2 different inexpensive interventions resulted in significant increases in appropriate management of OP after hip fracture. The magnitude of improvements achieved was directly related to the intensity of the interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".