human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background : Postfracture care is suboptimal , and strategies to address this major gap in care are necessary . We investigated whether notifications sent by mail to physicians and patients would lead to improved postfracture care . Methods : We conducted a r and omized controlled trial ( Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00594789 ) in the province of Manitoba , Canada , from June 2008 to May 2010 . Using medical cl aims data , we identified 4264 men and women age 50 years or older who recently reported major fractures , and who had not undergone recent bone mineral density testing or treatment for osteoporosis . Participants were r and omized to three groups : group 1 received usual care ( n = 1480 ) , patients in group 2 had mailed notification of the fracture sent to their primary care physicians ( n = 1363 ) , and group 3 had notifications sent to both physicians and patients ( n = 1421 ) . Bone mineral density testing and the start of pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis within the following 12 months were documented . Results : Among participants in group 1 ( usual care ) , 15.8 % of women and 7.6 % of men underwent testing for bone mineral density or started pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis . Outcome measures improved among participants in group 2 ( 30.3 % of women and 19.0 % of men , both p < 0.001 ) and group 3 ( 34.0 % of women and 19.8 % of men , both p < 0.001 ) . No additional benefit was seen with patient notification in addition to physician notification . Combining groups 2 and 3 , the absolute increase for the combined end point of bone mineral density testing or pharmacologic treatment was 14.9 % ( 16.4 % among women , 11.8 % among men ) . The number needed to notify to change patient care was 7 ( 6 for women , 6 for men ) . The adjusted odds ratio ( OR ) to change patient care in group 2 was 2.45 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 2.01–2.98 ) ; for group 3 the OR was 2.82 ( 95 % CI 2.33–3.43 ) . Interpretation : This notification system provides a relatively simple way to enhance post-fracture care BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE An active strategy was developed for the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain . The effect of this strategy on patients ' physical functioning , coping strategy , and beliefs regarding their low back pain was studied . SUBJECTS One hundred thirteen primary care physical therapists treated a total of 500 patients . METHODS The physical therapists were r and omly assigned to 1 of 2 groups . The control group received the guidelines by mail ( st and ard passive method of dissemination ) . The intervention group , in contrast , received an additional active training strategy consisting of 2 sessions with education , group discussion , role playing , feedback , and reminders .  Patients with low back pain , treated by the participating therapists , completed question naires on physical functioning , pain , sick leave , coping , and beliefs . RESULTS Physical functioning and pain in the 2 groups improved substantially in the first 12 weeks . Multilevel longitudinal analysis showed no differences between the 2 groups on any outcome measure during follow-up . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The authors found no additional benefit to applying an active strategy to implement the physical therapy guidelines for patients with low back pain . Active implementation strategies are not recommended if patient outcomes are to be improved Background A care gap exists between the health care needs of older persons with fragility fractures and the therapeutic answers they receive . The Fracture Prevention Service ( FPS ) , a tailored in-hospital model of care , may effectively bridge the osteoporosis care gap for hip-fractured older persons . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the FPS in targeting persons at high risk of future fracture and to improve their adherence to treatment . Methods This was a prospect i ve observational study conducted in a teaching hospital with traumatology and geriatric units , and had a pre-intervention and post-intervention phase . The records of 172 participants were evaluated in the pre-intervention phase , while data from 210 participants were gathered in the post-intervention phase . All participants underwent telephone follow-up at 12 months after hospital discharge . The participants were patients aged ≥65 years admitted to the orthopedic acute ward who underwent surgical repair of a proximal femoral fracture . A multidisciplinary integrated model of care was established . Dedicated pathways were implemented in clinical practice to optimize the identification of high-risk persons , improve their evaluation through bone mineral density testing and blood examinations , and initiate an appropriate treatment for secondary prevention of falls and fragility fractures . Results Compared with the pre-intervention phase , more hip-fractured persons received bone mineral density testing ( 47.62 % versus 14.53 % , P<0.0001 ) , specific pharmacological treatments ( 48.51 % versus 17.16 % , P<0.0001 ) , and an appointment for evaluation at a fall and fracture clinic ( 52.48 % versus 2.37 % , P<0.0001 ) in the post-intervention phase . Independent of some confounders , implementation of the FPS was positively associated with recommendations for secondary fracture prevention at discharge ( P<0.0001 ) and with 1-year adherence to pharmacological treatment ( P<0.0001 ) . Conclusion The FPS is an effective multidisciplinary integrated model of care to optimize identification of older persons at highest risk for fragility fracture , to improve their clinical management , and to increase adherence to prescriptions BACKGROUND Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures , screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK . We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women . METHODS We did a two-arm r and omised controlled trial in women aged 70 - 85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool ( FRAX ) with usual management . Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner ( GP ) practice s in seven regions of the UK : Birmingham , Bristol , Manchester , Norwich , Sheffield , Southampton , and York . We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study ( eg , known dementia , terminally ill , or recently bereaved ) . The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period . In the screening group , treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture , according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability . Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture , any clinical fracture , or mortality ; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life . This trial is registered with the International St and ard R and omised Controlled Trial registry , number IS RCT N 55814835 . FINDINGS 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial , and 6233 women r and omly assigned to the screening group between April 15 , 2008 , and July 2 , 2009 . Treatment was recommended in 898 ( 14 % ) of 6233 women . Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls ( 15 % vs 4 % ) , with uptake particularly high ( 78 % at 6 months ) in the screening high-risk subgroup . Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures ( hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·94 , 95 % CI 0·85 - 1·03 , p=0·178 ) , nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures ( 0·94 , 0·86 - 1·03 , p=0·183 ) , but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures ( 0·72 , 0·59 - 0·89 , p=0·002 ) . There was no evidence of differences in mortality , anxiety levels , or quality of life . INTERPRETATION Systematic , community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible , and could be effective in reducing hip fractures . FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council ABBREVIATIONS AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AFF = atypical femur fracture ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research BEL = best evidence level BMD = bone mineral density BTM = bone turnover marker CBC = complete blood count CI = confidence interval  DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry EL = evidence level FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration FLEX = Fracture Intervention Trial ( FIT ) Long-term Extension FRAX ® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool GFR = glomerular filtration rate GI = gastrointestinal HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly IOF = International Osteoporosis Foundation ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry IU = international units IV = intravenous LSC = least significant change NBHA = National Bone Health Alliance NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxy vitamin D ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw PINP = serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of type I collagen PTH = parathyroid hormone R = recommendation RANK = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B RANKL = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B lig and RCT = r and omized controlled trial RR = relative risk S-CTX = serum C-terminal telopeptide SQ = subcutaneous VFA = vertebral fracture assessment WHO = World Health Organization Background Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide at a high cost to healthcare systems , yet gaps in management still exist . In response , we developed a multi-component osteoporosis knowledge translation ( Op-KT ) tool involving a patient-initiated risk assessment question naire ( RAQ ) , which generates individualized best practice recommendations for physicians and customized education for patients at the point of care . The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Op-KT tool  for appropriate disease management by physicians . Methods The Op-KT tool was evaluated using an interrupted time series design . This involved multiple assessment s of the outcomes 12 months before ( baseline ) and 12 months after tool implementation ( 52 data points in total ) . Inclusion criteria were family physicians and their patients at risk for osteoporosis ( women aged ≥50 years , men aged ≥65 years ) . Primary outcomes were the initiation of appropriate osteoporosis screening and treatment . Analyses included segmented linear regression modeling and analysis of variance . Results The Op-KT tool was implemented in three family practice s in Ontario , Canada representing 5 family physicians with 2840 age eligible patients ( mean age 67 years ; 76 % women ) . Time series regression models showed an overall increase from baseline in the initiation of screening ( 3.4 % ; P < 0.001 ) , any osteoporosis medications ( 0.5 % ; P = 0.006 ) , and calcium or vitamin D ( 1.2 % ; P = 0.001 ) . Improvements were also observed at site level for all the three sites considered , but these results varied across the sites . Of 351 patients who completed the RAQ unprompted ( mean age 64 years , 77 % women ) , the mean time for completing the RAQ was 3.43 minutes , and 56 % had any disease management addressed by their physician . Study limitations included the inherent susceptibility of our design compared with a r and omized trial . Conclusions The multicomponent Op-KT tool significantly increased osteoporosis investigations in three family practice s , and highlights its potential to facilitate patient self-management . Next steps include wider implementation and evaluation of the tool in primary care Background Despite recommendations , osteoporosis screening rates among women aged 65 years and older remain low . We present results from a clustered , r and omized trial evaluating patient mailed reminders , alone and in combination with physician prompts , to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment . Methods Primary care clinics ( n = 15 ) were r and omized to usual care , mailed reminders alone , or mailed reminders with physician prompts .  Study patients were females aged 65–89 years ( N = 10,354 ) . Using automated clinical and pharmacy data , information was collected on bone mineral density testing , pharmacy dispensings , and other patient characteristics . Unadjusted/adjusted differences in testing and treatment were assessed using generalized estimating equation approaches . Results Osteoporosis screening rates were 10.8 % in usual care , 24.1 % in mailed reminder , and 28.9 % in mailed reminder with physician prompt . Results adjusted for differences at baseline indicated that mailed reminders significantly improved testing rates compared to usual care , and that the addition of prompts further improved testing . This effect increased with patient age . Treatment rates were 5.2 % in usual care , 8.4 % in mailed reminders , and 9.1 % in mailed reminders with prompt . No significant differences were found in treatment rates between those receiving mailed reminders alone or in combination with physician prompts . However , women receiving usual care were significantly less likely 
    Output:
    
agent
Interventions to improve OP management had a significant positive impact on prescription of BMD measurement but a more limited impact on treatment prescription
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background : Postfracture care is suboptimal , and strategies to address this major gap in care are necessary . We investigated whether notifications sent by mail to physicians and patients would lead to improved postfracture care . Methods : We conducted a r and omized controlled trial ( Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00594789 ) in the province of Manitoba , Canada , from June 2008 to May 2010 . Using medical cl aims data , we identified 4264 men and women age 50 years or older who recently reported major fractures , and who had not undergone recent bone mineral density testing or treatment for osteoporosis . Participants were r and omized to three groups : group 1 received usual care ( n = 1480 ) , patients in group 2 had mailed notification of the fracture sent to their primary care physicians ( n = 1363 ) , and group 3 had notifications sent to both physicians and patients ( n = 1421 ) . Bone mineral density testing and the start of pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis within the following 12 months were documented . Results : Among participants in group 1 ( usual care ) , 15.8 % of women and 7.6 % of men underwent testing for bone mineral density or started pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis . Outcome measures improved among participants in group 2 ( 30.3 % of women and 19.0 % of men , both p < 0.001 ) and group 3 ( 34.0 % of women and 19.8 % of men , both p < 0.001 ) . No additional benefit was seen with patient notification in addition to physician notification . Combining groups 2 and 3 , the absolute increase for the combined end point of bone mineral density testing or pharmacologic treatment was 14.9 % ( 16.4 % among women , 11.8 % among men ) . The number needed to notify to change patient care was 7 ( 6 for women , 6 for men ) . The adjusted odds ratio ( OR ) to change patient care in group 2 was 2.45 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 2.01–2.98 ) ; for group 3 the OR was 2.82 ( 95 % CI 2.33–3.43 ) . Interpretation : This notification system provides a relatively simple way to enhance post-fracture care BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE An active strategy was developed for the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain . The effect of this strategy on patients ' physical functioning , coping strategy , and beliefs regarding their low back pain was studied . SUBJECTS One hundred thirteen primary care physical therapists treated a total of 500 patients . METHODS The physical therapists were r and omly assigned to 1 of 2 groups . The control group received the guidelines by mail ( st and ard passive method of dissemination ) . The intervention group , in contrast , received an additional active training strategy consisting of 2 sessions with education , group discussion , role playing , feedback , and reminders .  Patients with low back pain , treated by the participating therapists , completed question naires on physical functioning , pain , sick leave , coping , and beliefs . RESULTS Physical functioning and pain in the 2 groups improved substantially in the first 12 weeks . Multilevel longitudinal analysis showed no differences between the 2 groups on any outcome measure during follow-up . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The authors found no additional benefit to applying an active strategy to implement the physical therapy guidelines for patients with low back pain . Active implementation strategies are not recommended if patient outcomes are to be improved Background A care gap exists between the health care needs of older persons with fragility fractures and the therapeutic answers they receive . The Fracture Prevention Service ( FPS ) , a tailored in-hospital model of care , may effectively bridge the osteoporosis care gap for hip-fractured older persons . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the FPS in targeting persons at high risk of future fracture and to improve their adherence to treatment . Methods This was a prospect i ve observational study conducted in a teaching hospital with traumatology and geriatric units , and had a pre-intervention and post-intervention phase . The records of 172 participants were evaluated in the pre-intervention phase , while data from 210 participants were gathered in the post-intervention phase . All participants underwent telephone follow-up at 12 months after hospital discharge . The participants were patients aged ≥65 years admitted to the orthopedic acute ward who underwent surgical repair of a proximal femoral fracture . A multidisciplinary integrated model of care was established . Dedicated pathways were implemented in clinical practice to optimize the identification of high-risk persons , improve their evaluation through bone mineral density testing and blood examinations , and initiate an appropriate treatment for secondary prevention of falls and fragility fractures . Results Compared with the pre-intervention phase , more hip-fractured persons received bone mineral density testing ( 47.62 % versus 14.53 % , P<0.0001 ) , specific pharmacological treatments ( 48.51 % versus 17.16 % , P<0.0001 ) , and an appointment for evaluation at a fall and fracture clinic ( 52.48 % versus 2.37 % , P<0.0001 ) in the post-intervention phase . Independent of some confounders , implementation of the FPS was positively associated with recommendations for secondary fracture prevention at discharge ( P<0.0001 ) and with 1-year adherence to pharmacological treatment ( P<0.0001 ) . Conclusion The FPS is an effective multidisciplinary integrated model of care to optimize identification of older persons at highest risk for fragility fracture , to improve their clinical management , and to increase adherence to prescriptions BACKGROUND Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures , screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK . We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women . METHODS We did a two-arm r and omised controlled trial in women aged 70 - 85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool ( FRAX ) with usual management . Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner ( GP ) practice s in seven regions of the UK : Birmingham , Bristol , Manchester , Norwich , Sheffield , Southampton , and York . We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study ( eg , known dementia , terminally ill , or recently bereaved ) . The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period . In the screening group , treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture , according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability . Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture , any clinical fracture , or mortality ; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life . This trial is registered with the International St and ard R and omised Controlled Trial registry , number IS RCT N 55814835 . FINDINGS 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial , and 6233 women r and omly assigned to the screening group between April 15 , 2008 , and July 2 , 2009 . Treatment was recommended in 898 ( 14 % ) of 6233 women . Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls ( 15 % vs 4 % ) , with uptake particularly high ( 78 % at 6 months ) in the screening high-risk subgroup . Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures ( hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·94 , 95 % CI 0·85 - 1·03 , p=0·178 ) , nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures ( 0·94 , 0·86 - 1·03 , p=0·183 ) , but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures ( 0·72 , 0·59 - 0·89 , p=0·002 ) . There was no evidence of differences in mortality , anxiety levels , or quality of life . INTERPRETATION Systematic , community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible , and could be effective in reducing hip fractures . FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council ABBREVIATIONS AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AFF = atypical femur fracture ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research BEL = best evidence level BMD = bone mineral density BTM = bone turnover marker CBC = complete blood count CI = confidence interval  DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry EL = evidence level FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration FLEX = Fracture Intervention Trial ( FIT ) Long-term Extension FRAX ® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool GFR = glomerular filtration rate GI = gastrointestinal HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly IOF = International Osteoporosis Foundation ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry IU = international units IV = intravenous LSC = least significant change NBHA = National Bone Health Alliance NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxy vitamin D ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw PINP = serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of type I collagen PTH = parathyroid hormone R = recommendation RANK = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B RANKL = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B lig and RCT = r and omized controlled trial RR = relative risk S-CTX = serum C-terminal telopeptide SQ = subcutaneous VFA = vertebral fracture assessment WHO = World Health Organization Background Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide at a high cost to healthcare systems , yet gaps in management still exist . In response , we developed a multi-component osteoporosis knowledge translation ( Op-KT ) tool involving a patient-initiated risk assessment question naire ( RAQ ) , which generates individualized best practice recommendations for physicians and customized education for patients at the point of care . The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Op-KT tool  for appropriate disease management by physicians . Methods The Op-KT tool was evaluated using an interrupted time series design . This involved multiple assessment s of the outcomes 12 months before ( baseline ) and 12 months after tool implementation ( 52 data points in total ) . Inclusion criteria were family physicians and their patients at risk for osteoporosis ( women aged ≥50 years , men aged ≥65 years ) . Primary outcomes were the initiation of appropriate osteoporosis screening and treatment . Analyses included segmented linear regression modeling and analysis of variance . Results The Op-KT tool was implemented in three family practice s in Ontario , Canada representing 5 family physicians with 2840 age eligible patients ( mean age 67 years ; 76 % women ) . Time series regression models showed an overall increase from baseline in the initiation of screening ( 3.4 % ; P < 0.001 ) , any osteoporosis medications ( 0.5 % ; P = 0.006 ) , and calcium or vitamin D ( 1.2 % ; P = 0.001 ) . Improvements were also observed at site level for all the three sites considered , but these results varied across the sites . Of 351 patients who completed the RAQ unprompted ( mean age 64 years , 77 % women ) , the mean time for completing the RAQ was 3.43 minutes , and 56 % had any disease management addressed by their physician . Study limitations included the inherent susceptibility of our design compared with a r and omized trial . Conclusions The multicomponent Op-KT tool significantly increased osteoporosis investigations in three family practice s , and highlights its potential to facilitate patient self-management . Next steps include wider implementation and evaluation of the tool in primary care Background Despite recommendations , osteoporosis screening rates among women aged 65 years and older remain low . We present results from a clustered , r and omized trial evaluating patient mailed reminders , alone and in combination with physician prompts , to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment . Methods Primary care clinics ( n = 15 ) were r and omized to usual care , mailed reminders alone , or mailed reminders with physician prompts .  Study patients were females aged 65–89 years ( N = 10,354 ) . Using automated clinical and pharmacy data , information was collected on bone mineral density testing , pharmacy dispensings , and other patient characteristics . Unadjusted/adjusted differences in testing and treatment were assessed using generalized estimating equation approaches . Results Osteoporosis screening rates were 10.8 % in usual care , 24.1 % in mailed reminder , and 28.9 % in mailed reminder with physician prompt . Results adjusted for differences at baseline indicated that mailed reminders significantly improved testing rates compared to usual care , and that the addition of prompts further improved testing . This effect increased with patient age . Treatment rates were 5.2 % in usual care , 8.4 % in mailed reminders , and 9.1 % in mailed reminders with prompt . No significant differences were found in treatment rates between those receiving mailed reminders alone or in combination with physician prompts . However , women receiving usual care were significantly less likely 
    Output:
    