Evidence Hub

Characterization and effectiveness of a Fracture Liaison Services program in Colombia

Valladales-Restrepo LF, Castro-Osorio EE, Ramírez-Osorio J, Echeverry-Martinez LF, Sánchez-Ríos V, Gaviria-Mendoza A, Machado-Duque ME, Machado-Alba JE

Archives of osteoporosis, 2023

438 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: Fracture Liaison Services programs reduce mortality and the risk of refracture and increase treatment and adherence rates. Greater coverage is an important priority for the future. The aim was to determine the characteristics of patients over 50 years old who suffered fractures and the effectiveness of a Fracture Liaison Services program in a health care institution in Colombia.

METHODS: This was a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort of patients with vertebral and nonvertebral fractures managed in a Fracture Liaison Services program. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables were identified. Key performance indicators were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Descriptive and bivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS: A total of 438 patients were analyzed. The average age was 77.5 years, and 78.5% were women. Hip and vertebral fractures were the most common (25.3% and 24.9%, respectively). Vertebral fractures prevailed in men (33.0% vs 22.7%; p = 0.041) and those of the radius/ulna in women (20.3% vs 10.6%; p = 0.031). A total of 29.7% had experienced a previous fracture, and 16.7% had received antiosteoporosis drugs. A total of 63.5% of the cases were managed surgically. At discharge, 58.8% received prescriptions for calcium/vitamin D, and 50.7% with prescriptions of antiosteoporotic therapy, especially teriparatide (21.2%) and denosumab (16.4%), without significant differences by sex. However, in women with hip fractures,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 438 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free