| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ebeling, Peter R., et al.
(författare)
-
The Efficacy and Safety of Vertebral Augmentation : A Second ASBMR Task Force Report
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. - : Wiley. - 0884-0431 .- 1523-4681. ; 34:1, s. 3-21
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40–70%.
|
|
| 4. |
- Giangregorio, Lora M, et al.
(författare)
-
FRAX underestimates fracture risk in patients with diabetes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of bone and mineral research. - : Wiley. - 1523-4681 .- 0884-0431. ; 27:2, s. 301-308
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The study objective was to determine whether diabetes is a risk factor for incident hip or major osteoporotic fractures independent of FRAX. Men and women with diabetes (N=3,518) and non-diabetics (N=36,085) age ≥50 years at the time of BMD testing (1990-2007) were identified in a large clinical database from Manitoba, Canada. FRAX probabilities were calculated and fracture outcomes to 2008 were established via linkage with a population-based data repository. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine if diabetes was associated with incident hip fractures or major osteoporotic fractures after controlling for FRAX risk factors. Mean 10-year probabilities of fracture were similar between groups for major fractures (diabetic 11.1±7.2 vs. non-diabetic 10.9±7.3, p-value=0.116) and hip fractures (diabetic 2.9±4.4 vs. non-diabetic 2.8±4.4, p-value=0.400). Diabetes was a significant predictor of subsequent major osteoporotic fracture (HR 1.61 [95% CI; 1.42-1.83]) after controlling for age, sex, medication use, and FRAX risk factors including BMD. Similar results were seen after adjusting for FRAX probability directly (HR 1.59 [95% CI; 1.40-1.79]). Diabetes was also associated with significantly higher risk for hip fractures (p-value<0.001). Higher mortality from diabetes attenuated but did not eliminate the excess fracture risk. FRAX underestimated observed major osteoporotic and hip fracture risk in diabetics (adjusted for competing mortality), but demonstrated good concordance with observed fractures for non-diabetics. We conclude that diabetes confers an increased risk of fracture that is independent of FRAX derived with BMD. This suggests that diabetes might be considered for inclusion in future iterations of FRAX. © 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
|
|
| 5. |
- Tremblay, Mark S, et al.
(författare)
-
Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1479-5868. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need.First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey.Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided.It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.
|
|
