Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Open access
Wu, Chih-Hsing, Tu, Shih-Te, Chang, Yin-Fan, Chan, Ding-Cheng, Chien, Jui-Teng, Lin, Chih-Hsueh, Singh, Sonal, Dasari, Manikanta, Chen, Jung-Fu, Tsai, Keh-Sung·2018·Bone

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures managed through fracture liaison services (FLS) programs. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched (January 2000-February 2017 inclusive) using the keywords 'osteoporosis', 'fractures', 'liaison', and 'service' to identify randomised controlled trials and observational studies of patients aged ≥50years with osteoporosis-related fractures in hospital, clinic, community, or home-based settings who were managed using FLS. Risk of bias was assessed at outcome level. Meta-analysis followed a random-effects and fixed-effects model. Outcomes of interest were incidence of bone mineral density (BMD) testing, treatment initiation, adherence, re-fractures, and mortality due to osteoporosis treatment. RESULTS: A total of 159 publications were identified for the systematic literature review; 74 controlled studies (16 RCTs; 58 observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 41 of 58 observational studies and 12 of 16 RCTs were considered of high quality. Compared with patients receiving usual care (or those in the control arm), patients receiving care from an FLS program had higher rates of BMD testing (48.0% vs 23.5%) and treatment initiation (38.0% vs 17.2%) and greater adherence (57.0% vs 34.1%). Unweighted average rates of re-fracture were 13.4% among patients in the control arm and 6.4% in the FLS arm. Unweighted average rates of mortality were 15.8% in the control arm and 10.4% in the FLS arm. Meta-analysis revealed significant FLS-associated improvements in all outcomes versus non-FLS controls, with BMD testing increased by 24 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.29), 20 percentage points for treatment rates (95% CI 0.16-0.25), and 22 percentage points for adherence (95% CI 0.13-0.31) and absolute risk of re-fracture reduced by five percentage points (95% CI -0.08 to -0.03) and mortality reduced by three percentage points (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01). CONCLUSION: FLS programs improved outcomes of osteoporosis-related fractures, with significant increases in BMD testing, treatment initiation, and adherence to treatment and reductions in re-fracture incidence and mortality.

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 · 10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Wu, C.-H., Tu, S.-T., Chang, Y.-F., Chan, D.-C., Chien, J.-T., Lin, C.-H., Singh, S., Dasari, M., Chen, J.-F., & Tsai, K.-S.
Venue
Bone
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
111
Pages
92-100
ISSN
  • 1873-2763 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-3282
OpenAlex
W2791508598
Cited by
307
References
1
FWCI
6.77
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: Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018
The paper
Wu, C.-H., Tu, S.-T., Chang, Y.-F., Chan, D.-C., Chien, J.-T., Lin, C.-H., Singh, S., Dasari, M., Chen, J.-F., & Tsai, K.-S. (2018). Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018

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.