Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 665

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
US Preventive Services Task Force, Curry, Susan J., Krist, Alex H., Owens, Douglas K., Barry, Michael J., Caughey, Aaron B., Davidson, Karina W., Doubeni, Chyke A., Epling, John W., Kemper, Alex R., Kubik, Martha, Landefeld, C. Seth, Mangione, Carol M., Phipps, Maureen G., Pignone, Michael, Silverstein, Michael, Simon, Melissa A., Tseng, Chien-Wen, Wong, John B.·2018·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.7498
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Importance: 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. Objective: To update the 2011 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for osteoporosis. Evidence Review: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions and Recommendation: 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).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2018.7498

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
US Preventive Services Task Force, Curry, S. J., Krist, A. H., Owens, D. K., Barry, M. J., Caughey, A. B., Davidson, K. W., Doubeni, C. A., Epling, J. W., Kemper, A. R., Kubik, M., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M., Silverstein, M., Simon, M. A., Tseng, C.-W., & Wong, J. B.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2018-06-26
Volume
319
Issue
24
Pages
2521
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2018.7498
OpenAlex
W2810327208
Cited by
665
References
8
FWCI
52.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.