The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY: We assessed the ability of a fracture liaison service (FLS) to directly reduce re-fracture risk. Having a FLS is associated with a ∼40% reduction in the 3-year risk of major bone and ∼30% of any bone re-fracture. The number needed to treat to prevent a re-fracture is 20. INTRODUCTION: FLS have been promoted as the most effective interventions for secondary fracture prevention, and while there is evidence of increased rate of investigation and treatment at institutions with a FLS, only a few studies have considered fracture outcomes directly. We therefore sought to evaluate the ability of our FLS to reduce re-fracture risk. METHODS: Historical cohort study of all patients ≥50 years presenting over a 6-month period with a minimal trauma fracture (MTF) to the emergency departments of a tertiary hospital with a FLS, and one without a FLS. Baseline characteristics, mortality and MTFs over a 3-year follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: Five hundred fifteen patients at the FLS hospital and 416 patients at the non-FLS hospital were studied. Over 3 years, 63/515 (12%) patients at the FLS hospital and 70/416 (17%) at the non-FLS hospital had a MTF. All patients were analysed in an intention-to-treat analysis regardless of whether they were seen in the FLS follow-up clinic. Statistical analysis using Cox proportional hazard models in the presence of a competing risk of death from any cause was used. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, there was a ∼30% reduction in rate of any re-fracture at the FLS hospital (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.95, p value 0.025) and a ∼40% reduction in major re-fractures (hip, spine, femur, pelvis or humerus) (HR 0.59, CI 0.39-0.90, p value 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: We found a ∼30% reduction in any re-fractures and a ∼40% reduction in major re-fractures at the FLS hospital compared with a similar non-FLS hospital. The number of patients needed to treat to prevent one new fracture over 3 years is 20.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk
Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 · Cited by 14,290
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
McLellan, A. R., Wolowacz, S. E., Zimovetz, E. A., Beard, S. M., Lock, S., McCrink, L., Adekunle, F., & Roberts, D. (2011) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1534-0 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Nakayama, A., Major, G., Holliday, E., Attia, J., & Bogduk, N.
- Venue
- Osteoporosis International
- Published
- 2015-12-09
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 873-879
- ISSN
- 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
- 1433-2965
- OpenAlex
- W2190852697
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00198-015-3443-0
- The paper
- Nakayama, A., Major, G., Holliday, E., Attia, J., & Bogduk, N. (2016). Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporosis International. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3443-0
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.