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: Appendicular bone mass is inversely related to the risk of hip fracture  in short-term prospect i ve studies , but hip fractures typically occur about 30 years after menopause . We developed a model that estimates a woman 's lifetime risk of hip fracture  based on measurement of radial bone mass at age 50  using short-term prospect i ve data relating bone mass to hip fracture , the correlation between bone mass at age 50 and later years , the age-specific incidence of hip fracture and mortality , and prospect i ve data about bone mass and mortality . We estimate that a 50-year-old white woman has a 19 % lifetime risk of hip fracture if her radial bone mass is at the 10th percentile for her age and an 11 % lifetime risk if her bone mass is at the 90th percentile . Improved measurement techniques that have a higher predictive value for hip fracture in short-term studies could substantially increase this gradient of lifetime risk and therefore be more clinical ly useful The objectives of this study were to determine information needs of family physicians around issues in the management of osteoporosis and preferences for dissemination of this information . A mailed survey was sent to a stratified r and om sample of 1000 family physicians in Ontario in May 2001 . Female physicians and those practicing in rural communities were over- sample d from the College of Family Physicians ' data base . Among the 505 respondents , 364 were still practicing ( 182 males and 182 females ) and completed the full question naire . There were no statistically significant differences in responses by sex or region of practice . Over 80 % of family physicians wanted to be more informed about bone density testing and the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis .  The presence of risk factors was one of the most influential factors ( 72 % ) for ordering bone density testing . Information in peer- review ed journals was thought to be the most credible , with 80 % rating the CMAJ as very credible compared to 47 % for the Osteoporosis Society of Canada ( OSC ) . Sixty-two percent found the OSC guidelines ( 1996 ) to be useful even though much of that information is now out of date . Almost 70 % had not read the more recently published treatment guidelines from the Ontario Program for Optimal Therapeutics ( 2000 ) . Over 80 % were interested in a decision aid , which incorporates information on risk factors , fracture risk and a treatment algorithm . The perceived need and the lack of availability of clinical ly useful information on osteoporosis for the family practice setting highlights the failure of the current guideline implementation process and provides insight into where the process has to be improved BACKGROUND Although osteoporosis is strongly associated with hip fractures , the initiation of osteoporosis treatment following hip fractures occurs at surprisingly low rates of between 5 % and 30 % . Currently , most patients receiving treatment have been referred back to their primary care physician for osteoporosis management . The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of osteoporosis management initiated by the orthopaedic team and osteoporosis management initiated by the primary care physician on the rates of treatment at six months . METHODS A prospect i ve r and omized trial was conducted to assess the difference in the rate of osteoporosis treatment  when an in-house assessment of osteoporosis was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and follow-up was conducted in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic compared with osteoporosis education and " usual " care . RESULTS Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study . Thirty-one patients each were in the control and intervention groups . The percentage of patients who were on pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis  at six months after the fracture was significantly greater when the evaluation was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and was managed in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic ( 58 % ) than when treatment was managed by a primary care physician ( 29 % ) ( p = 0.04 ) . CONCLUSIONS An active role by orthopaedic surgeons in the management of osteoporosis improves the rate of treatment at six months following a hip fracture BACKGROUND In a r and omized trial of patients with hip fractures , we previously demonstrated that a hospital-based case manager could increase rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment to 51 % compared with 22 % for usual care ( P < .001 ) . Alongside that trial , we conducted an economic analysis . METHODS Patients with hip fractures were r and omized to usual care ( n = 110 ) or a case manager ( n = 110 ) and followed up for 1 year . Time-motion studies were used to determine intervention costs . From a third-party health care payer perspective and over the patient 's remaining lifetime , a Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to determine  cost-effectiveness  of the intervention compared with usual care .  Costs and benefits were discounted at 3 % and expressed in 2006 Canadian dollars . RESULTS The intervention cost CaD $ 56 per patient . Compared with usual care , the intervention strategy was dominant : for every 100 patients case managed , 6 fractures ( 4 hip fractures ) were prevented , 4 quality -adjusted life-years were gained , and CaD $ 260 000 was saved by the health care system . Irrespective of the number of patients case managed , the intervention reached a break-even threshold within 2 years . The intervention dominated usual care over the entire spectrum of 1-way sensitivity analyses and was cost-saving in 82 % of probabilistic model simulations . CONCLUSIONS Compared with usual care , we found that using a case manager for patients with hip fractures increased rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment . The intervention dominated usual care , and the analysis suggests that systems implementing an intervention similar to ours should expect to see a reduction in fractures , gains in life expectancy , and substantial cost savings . TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov Identifier : NCT00175175 Background Despite accurate diagnostic tests and effective therapies , the management of osteoporosis has been observed to be suboptimal in many setting s. We tested the effectiveness of an intervention to improve care in patients at-risk of osteoporosis . Design R and omized controlled trial . Participants Primary care physicians and their patients at-risk of osteoporosis , including women 65 years and over , men and women 45 and over with a prior fracture , and men and women 45 and over who recently used ≥90 days of oral glucocorticoids . InterventionA multifaceted program of education and reminders delivered to primary care physicians as well as mailings and automated telephone calls to patients . Outcome : Either undergoing a bone mineral density ( BMD ) testing or filling a prescription for a bone-active medication during the 10 months of follow-up . Results After the intervention , 144 ( 14 % ) patients in the intervention group and 97 ( 10 % ) patients in the control group received either a BMD test or filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication . This represents a 4 % absolute increase and a 45 % relative increase ( 95 % confidence interval 9–93 % , p = 0.01 ) in osteoporosis management between the intervention and control groups . No differences between groups were observed in the incidence of fracture . Conclusion An intervention targeting primary care physicians and their at-risk patients increased the frequency of BMD testing and /or filling prescriptions for osteoporosis medications . However , the absolute percentage of at-risk patients receiving osteoporosis management remained low BACKGROUND Despite its association with disability , death , and increased medical costs , osteoporosis in men has been relatively neglected as a subject of study . There have been no large , controlled trials of treatment in men . METHODS In a two-year double-blind trial , we studied the effect of 10 mg of alendronate or placebo , given daily , on bone mineral density in 241 men ( age , 31 to 87 years ; mean , 63 ) with osteoporosis . Approximately one third had low serum free testosterone concentrations at base line ; the rest had normal concentrations . Men with other secondary causes of osteoporosis were excluded . All the men received calcium and vitamin D supplements . The main outcome measures were the percent changes in lumbar-spine , hip , and total-body bone mineral density . RESULTS The men who received alendronate had a mean ( + /-SE ) increase in bone mineral density of 7.1+/-0.3 percent at the lumbar spine , 2.5+/-0.4 percent at the femoral neck , and 2.0+/-0.2 percent for the total body ( P<0.001 for all comparisons with base line ) . In contrast , men who received placebo had an increase in lumbar-spine bone mineral density of 1.8+/-0.5 percent ( P<0.001 for the comparison with base line ) and no significant changes in femoral-neck or total-body bone mineral density . The increase in bone mineral density in the alendronate group was greater than that in the placebo group at all measurement sites ( P<0.001 ) . The incidence of vertebral fractures was lower in the alendronate group than in the placebo group ( 0.8 percent vs. 7.1 percent , P=0.02 ) . Men in the placebo group had a 2.4-mm decrease in height , as compared with a decrease of 0.6 mm in the alendronate group ( P=0.02 ) . Alendronate was generally well tolerated . CONCLUSIONS In men with osteoporosis , alendronate significantly increases spine , hip , and total-body bone mineral density and helps prevent vertebral fractures and decreases in height BACKGROUND Previous studies have shown that alendronate can increase bone mineral density ( BMD ) and prevent radiographically defined ( morphometric ) vertebral fractures . The Fracture Intervention Trial aim ed to investigate the effect of alendronate on the risk of morphometric as well as clinical ly evident fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass . METHODS Women aged 55 - 81 with low femoral-neck BMD were enrolled in two study groups based on presence or absence of an existing vertebral fracture . Results for women with at least one vertebral fracture at baseline are reported here . 2027 women were r and omly assigned placebo ( 1005 ) or alendronate ( 1022 ) and followed up for 36 months . The dose of alendronate ( initially 5 mg daily ) was increased ( to 10 mg daily ) at 24 months , with maintenance of the double blind . Lateral spine radiography was done at baseline and at 24 and 36 months . New vertebral fractures , the primary endpoint , were defined by morphometry as a decrease of 20 % ( and at least 4 mm ) in at least one vertebral height between the baseline and latest follow-up radiograph . Non-spine clinical fractures were confirmed by radiographic reports . New symptomatic vertebral fractures were based on self-report and confirmed by radiography . FINDINGS Follow-up radiographs were obtained for 1946 women ( 98 % of surviving participants ) . 78 ( 8.0 % ) of women in the alendronate group had one or more new morphometric vertebral fractures compared with 145 ( 15.0 % ) in the placebo group ( relative risk 0.53 [ 95 % Cl 0.41 - 0.68 ] ) . For clinical ly apparent vertebral fractures , the corresponding numbers were 23 ( 2.3 % ) alendronate and 50 ( 5.0 % ) placebo ( relative hazard 0.45 [ 0.27 - 0.72 ] ) . The risk of any clinical fracture , the main secondary endpoint , was lower in the alendronate than in the placebo group ( 139 [ 13.6 % ] vs 183 [ 18.2 % ] ; relative hazard 0.72 [ 0.58 - 0.90 ] ) . The relative hazards for hip fracture and wrist fracture for alendronate versus placebo were 0.49 ( 0.23 - 0.99 ) and 0.52 ( 0.31 - 0.87 ) . There was no significant difference between the groups in numbers of adverse experiences , including upper-gastrointestinal disorders . INTERPRETATION We conclude that among women with low bone mass and existing vertebral  fractures , alendronate is well tolerated and substantially reduces the frequency of morphometric and clinical vertebral fractures , as well as other clinical fractures UNLABELLED We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician intervention only , or both interventions . There was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint ( BMD test or osteoporosis medication ) or in either of its components comparing the combined intervention group with usual care ( risk ratio = 1.04 ; 95 % CI , 0.85 - 1.26 ) . INTRODUCTION Fractures from osteoporosis are associated with substantial morbidity , mortality , and cost . However , only a minority of at-risk older adults receives screening and /or treatment for this condition . We evaluated the effect of educational interventions for osteoporosis targeting at-risk patients , primary care physicians , or both . MATERIAL S AND METHODS We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician 
    Output:
    
agent
Conclusions All interventions produced positive effects on BMD scanning and osteoporosis treatment rates post-fracture .
Despite sizeable increases , investigation and treatment rates remain sub-optimal .
***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: Appendicular bone mass is inversely related to the risk of hip fracture  in short-term prospect i ve studies , but hip fractures typically occur about 30 years after menopause . We developed a model that estimates a woman 's lifetime risk of hip fracture  based on measurement of radial bone mass at age 50  using short-term prospect i ve data relating bone mass to hip fracture , the correlation between bone mass at age 50 and later years , the age-specific incidence of hip fracture and mortality , and prospect i ve data about bone mass and mortality . We estimate that a 50-year-old white woman has a 19 % lifetime risk of hip fracture if her radial bone mass is at the 10th percentile for her age and an 11 % lifetime risk if her bone mass is at the 90th percentile . Improved measurement techniques that have a higher predictive value for hip fracture in short-term studies could substantially increase this gradient of lifetime risk and therefore be more clinical ly useful The objectives of this study were to determine information needs of family physicians around issues in the management of osteoporosis and preferences for dissemination of this information . A mailed survey was sent to a stratified r and om sample of 1000 family physicians in Ontario in May 2001 . Female physicians and those practicing in rural communities were over- sample d from the College of Family Physicians ' data base . Among the 505 respondents , 364 were still practicing ( 182 males and 182 females ) and completed the full question naire . There were no statistically significant differences in responses by sex or region of practice . Over 80 % of family physicians wanted to be more informed about bone density testing and the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis .  The presence of risk factors was one of the most influential factors ( 72 % ) for ordering bone density testing . Information in peer- review ed journals was thought to be the most credible , with 80 % rating the CMAJ as very credible compared to 47 % for the Osteoporosis Society of Canada ( OSC ) . Sixty-two percent found the OSC guidelines ( 1996 ) to be useful even though much of that information is now out of date . Almost 70 % had not read the more recently published treatment guidelines from the Ontario Program for Optimal Therapeutics ( 2000 ) . Over 80 % were interested in a decision aid , which incorporates information on risk factors , fracture risk and a treatment algorithm . The perceived need and the lack of availability of clinical ly useful information on osteoporosis for the family practice setting highlights the failure of the current guideline implementation process and provides insight into where the process has to be improved BACKGROUND Although osteoporosis is strongly associated with hip fractures , the initiation of osteoporosis treatment following hip fractures occurs at surprisingly low rates of between 5 % and 30 % . Currently , most patients receiving treatment have been referred back to their primary care physician for osteoporosis management . The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of osteoporosis management initiated by the orthopaedic team and osteoporosis management initiated by the primary care physician on the rates of treatment at six months . METHODS A prospect i ve r and omized trial was conducted to assess the difference in the rate of osteoporosis treatment  when an in-house assessment of osteoporosis was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and follow-up was conducted in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic compared with osteoporosis education and " usual " care . RESULTS Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study . Thirty-one patients each were in the control and intervention groups . The percentage of patients who were on pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis  at six months after the fracture was significantly greater when the evaluation was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon and was managed in a specialized orthopaedic osteoporosis clinic ( 58 % ) than when treatment was managed by a primary care physician ( 29 % ) ( p = 0.04 ) . CONCLUSIONS An active role by orthopaedic surgeons in the management of osteoporosis improves the rate of treatment at six months following a hip fracture BACKGROUND In a r and omized trial of patients with hip fractures , we previously demonstrated that a hospital-based case manager could increase rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment to 51 % compared with 22 % for usual care ( P < .001 ) . Alongside that trial , we conducted an economic analysis . METHODS Patients with hip fractures were r and omized to usual care ( n = 110 ) or a case manager ( n = 110 ) and followed up for 1 year . Time-motion studies were used to determine intervention costs . From a third-party health care payer perspective and over the patient 's remaining lifetime , a Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to determine  cost-effectiveness  of the intervention compared with usual care .  Costs and benefits were discounted at 3 % and expressed in 2006 Canadian dollars . RESULTS The intervention cost CaD $ 56 per patient . Compared with usual care , the intervention strategy was dominant : for every 100 patients case managed , 6 fractures ( 4 hip fractures ) were prevented , 4 quality -adjusted life-years were gained , and CaD $ 260 000 was saved by the health care system . Irrespective of the number of patients case managed , the intervention reached a break-even threshold within 2 years . The intervention dominated usual care over the entire spectrum of 1-way sensitivity analyses and was cost-saving in 82 % of probabilistic model simulations . CONCLUSIONS Compared with usual care , we found that using a case manager for patients with hip fractures increased rates of appropriate osteoporosis treatment . The intervention dominated usual care , and the analysis suggests that systems implementing an intervention similar to ours should expect to see a reduction in fractures , gains in life expectancy , and substantial cost savings . TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov Identifier : NCT00175175 Background Despite accurate diagnostic tests and effective therapies , the management of osteoporosis has been observed to be suboptimal in many setting s. We tested the effectiveness of an intervention to improve care in patients at-risk of osteoporosis . Design R and omized controlled trial . Participants Primary care physicians and their patients at-risk of osteoporosis , including women 65 years and over , men and women 45 and over with a prior fracture , and men and women 45 and over who recently used ≥90 days of oral glucocorticoids . InterventionA multifaceted program of education and reminders delivered to primary care physicians as well as mailings and automated telephone calls to patients . Outcome : Either undergoing a bone mineral density ( BMD ) testing or filling a prescription for a bone-active medication during the 10 months of follow-up . Results After the intervention , 144 ( 14 % ) patients in the intervention group and 97 ( 10 % ) patients in the control group received either a BMD test or filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication . This represents a 4 % absolute increase and a 45 % relative increase ( 95 % confidence interval 9–93 % , p = 0.01 ) in osteoporosis management between the intervention and control groups . No differences between groups were observed in the incidence of fracture . Conclusion An intervention targeting primary care physicians and their at-risk patients increased the frequency of BMD testing and /or filling prescriptions for osteoporosis medications . However , the absolute percentage of at-risk patients receiving osteoporosis management remained low BACKGROUND Despite its association with disability , death , and increased medical costs , osteoporosis in men has been relatively neglected as a subject of study . There have been no large , controlled trials of treatment in men . METHODS In a two-year double-blind trial , we studied the effect of 10 mg of alendronate or placebo , given daily , on bone mineral density in 241 men ( age , 31 to 87 years ; mean , 63 ) with osteoporosis . Approximately one third had low serum free testosterone concentrations at base line ; the rest had normal concentrations . Men with other secondary causes of osteoporosis were excluded . All the men received calcium and vitamin D supplements . The main outcome measures were the percent changes in lumbar-spine , hip , and total-body bone mineral density . RESULTS The men who received alendronate had a mean ( + /-SE ) increase in bone mineral density of 7.1+/-0.3 percent at the lumbar spine , 2.5+/-0.4 percent at the femoral neck , and 2.0+/-0.2 percent for the total body ( P<0.001 for all comparisons with base line ) . In contrast , men who received placebo had an increase in lumbar-spine bone mineral density of 1.8+/-0.5 percent ( P<0.001 for the comparison with base line ) and no significant changes in femoral-neck or total-body bone mineral density . The increase in bone mineral density in the alendronate group was greater than that in the placebo group at all measurement sites ( P<0.001 ) . The incidence of vertebral fractures was lower in the alendronate group than in the placebo group ( 0.8 percent vs. 7.1 percent , P=0.02 ) . Men in the placebo group had a 2.4-mm decrease in height , as compared with a decrease of 0.6 mm in the alendronate group ( P=0.02 ) . Alendronate was generally well tolerated . CONCLUSIONS In men with osteoporosis , alendronate significantly increases spine , hip , and total-body bone mineral density and helps prevent vertebral fractures and decreases in height BACKGROUND Previous studies have shown that alendronate can increase bone mineral density ( BMD ) and prevent radiographically defined ( morphometric ) vertebral fractures . The Fracture Intervention Trial aim ed to investigate the effect of alendronate on the risk of morphometric as well as clinical ly evident fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass . METHODS Women aged 55 - 81 with low femoral-neck BMD were enrolled in two study groups based on presence or absence of an existing vertebral fracture . Results for women with at least one vertebral fracture at baseline are reported here . 2027 women were r and omly assigned placebo ( 1005 ) or alendronate ( 1022 ) and followed up for 36 months . The dose of alendronate ( initially 5 mg daily ) was increased ( to 10 mg daily ) at 24 months , with maintenance of the double blind . Lateral spine radiography was done at baseline and at 24 and 36 months . New vertebral fractures , the primary endpoint , were defined by morphometry as a decrease of 20 % ( and at least 4 mm ) in at least one vertebral height between the baseline and latest follow-up radiograph . Non-spine clinical fractures were confirmed by radiographic reports . New symptomatic vertebral fractures were based on self-report and confirmed by radiography . FINDINGS Follow-up radiographs were obtained for 1946 women ( 98 % of surviving participants ) . 78 ( 8.0 % ) of women in the alendronate group had one or more new morphometric vertebral fractures compared with 145 ( 15.0 % ) in the placebo group ( relative risk 0.53 [ 95 % Cl 0.41 - 0.68 ] ) . For clinical ly apparent vertebral fractures , the corresponding numbers were 23 ( 2.3 % ) alendronate and 50 ( 5.0 % ) placebo ( relative hazard 0.45 [ 0.27 - 0.72 ] ) . The risk of any clinical fracture , the main secondary endpoint , was lower in the alendronate than in the placebo group ( 139 [ 13.6 % ] vs 183 [ 18.2 % ] ; relative hazard 0.72 [ 0.58 - 0.90 ] ) . The relative hazards for hip fracture and wrist fracture for alendronate versus placebo were 0.49 ( 0.23 - 0.99 ) and 0.52 ( 0.31 - 0.87 ) . There was no significant difference between the groups in numbers of adverse experiences , including upper-gastrointestinal disorders . INTERPRETATION We conclude that among women with low bone mass and existing vertebral  fractures , alendronate is well tolerated and substantially reduces the frequency of morphometric and clinical vertebral fractures , as well as other clinical fractures UNLABELLED We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician intervention only , or both interventions . There was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint ( BMD test or osteoporosis medication ) or in either of its components comparing the combined intervention group with usual care ( risk ratio = 1.04 ; 95 % CI , 0.85 - 1.26 ) . INTRODUCTION Fractures from osteoporosis are associated with substantial morbidity , mortality , and cost . However , only a minority of at-risk older adults receives screening and /or treatment for this condition . We evaluated the effect of educational interventions for osteoporosis targeting at-risk patients , primary care physicians , or both . MATERIAL S AND METHODS We conducted a r and omized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries . Primary care physicians and their patients were r and omized to usual care , patient intervention only , physician 
    Output:
    