SpringerLink
Log in

Access to fracture risk assessment by FRAX and linked National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidance in the UK—an analysis of anonymous website activity

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

In the UK, fracture risk guidance is provided by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). NOGG usage showed widespread access through direct web-based linkage to FRAX. The facilitated interaction between fracture risk assessment and clinical guidelines could usefully be adopted in other countries.

Introduction

In the UK, guidance on assessment of osteoporosis and fracture risk is provided by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (www.shef.ac.uk/NOGG). We wished to determine access to this guidance by exploring website activity.

Methods

We undertook an analysis of FRAX and NOGG website usage for the year between 1st July 2013 and 30th June 2014 using Google Analytics software.

Results

During this period, there was a total of 1,774,812 sessions (a user interaction with the website) on the FRAX website with 348,964 of these from UK-based users; 253,530 sessions were recorded on the NOGG website. Of the latter, two-thirds were returning visitors, with the vast majority (208,766; 82 %) arising from sites within the UK. The remainder of sessions were from other countries demonstrating that some users of FRAX in other countries make use of the NOGG guidance. Of the UK-sourced sessions, the majority was from England, but the session rate (adjusted for population) was the highest for Scotland. Almost all (95.7 %) of the UK sessions arose from calculations being passed through from the FRAX tool (www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX) to the NOGG website, comprising FRAX calculations in patients without a bone mineral density (BMD) measurement (74.5 %) or FRAX calculations with a BMD result (21.2 %). National Health Service (NHS) sites were identified as the major source of visits to the NOGG website, comprising 79.9 % of the identifiable visiting locations, but this is an underestimate as many sites from within the NHS are not classified as such.

Conclusion

The study shows that the facilitated interaction between web-based fracture risk assessment and clinical guidelines is widely used in the UK. The approach could usefully be adopted in other countries for which a FRAX model is available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Neuprez A, Johansson H, Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Oden A, Bruyere O, Hiligsmann M, Devogelaer JP, Kaufman JM, Reginster JY (2009) A FRAX model for the assessment of fracture probability in Belgium. Rev Med Liege 64:612–619, 20143744

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM et al (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. CMAJ 182:1864–1873, 20940232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R (2012) Cost-effective intervention thresholds against osteoporotic fractures based on FRAX(R) in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 22222755

  4. Lippuner K, Johansson H, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R (2010) FRAX assessment of osteoporotic fracture probability in Switzerland. Osteoporos Int 21:381–389, 19517155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dawson-Hughes B (2008) A revised clinician’s guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:2463–2465, 18544615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson-Hughes B, Tosteson AN, Melton LJ 3rd, Baim S, Favus MJ, Khosla S, Lindsay RL (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449–458, 18292975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lekamwasam S, Adachi JD, Agnusdei D et al (2012) A framework for the development of guidelines for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 23:2257–2276, 22434203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Briot K, Cortet B, Thomas T et al (2012) 2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine 79:304–313, 22521109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Orimo H, Nakamura T, Hosoi T et al (2012) Japanese 2011 guidelines for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis—executive summary. Arch Osteoporos 7:3–20, 23203733

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2013) European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 24:23–57, 23079689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK, et al. American College of Rheumatology (2010) Recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 62:1515–1526 20662044

  12. Socialstyrelsen. (2010) Nationella riktlinjer för rörelseorganens sjukdomar 2010 - stöd för styrning och ledning. Preliminär version. . Artikelnr 2010-11-15 Publicerad www.socialstyrelsen.se

  13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) NICE Clinical Guideline 146. Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture

  14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2015. (SIGN publication no 142) [March 2015] Available from URL: http://www.sign.ac.uk

  15. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, Wilkins M (2009) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 62:105–108, 19135323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013. Maturitas 75:392–396, 23810490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, Cooper C, McCloskey EV (2014) Worldwide uptake of FRAX. Arch Osteoporos 9:166, 24420978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Castel H, Bonneh DY, Sherf M, Liel Y (2001) Awareness of osteoporosis and compliance with management guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed low-impact fractures. Osteoporos Int 12:559–564, 11527053

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chenot R, Scheidt-Nave C, Gabler S, Kochen MM, Himmel W (2007) German primary care doctors’ awareness of osteoporosis and knowledge of national guidelines. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 115:584–589, 17943692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wagnon JH, Leiman DA, Ayers GD, Schwartz DA (2009) Survey of gastroenterologists’ awareness and implementation of AGA guidelines on osteoporosis in inflammatory bowel disease patients: are the guidelines being used and what are the barriers to their use? Inflamm Bowel Dis 15:1082–1089, 19137605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Solomon DH, Brookhart MA, Gandhi TK, Karson A, Gharib S, Orav EJ, Shaykevich S, Licari A, Cabral D, Bates DW (2004) Adherence with osteoporosis practice guidelines: a multilevel analysis of patient, physician, and practice setting characteristics. Am J Med 117:919–924, 15629730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A, Jamtvedt G, O’Brien MA, Wolf F, Davis D, Odgaard-Jensen J, Oxman AD (2009) Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003030 19370580

  23. Arditi C, Rege-Walther M, Wyatt JC, Durieux P, Burnand B (2012) Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12(CD001175):23235578

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gillaizeau F, Chan E, Trinquart L, Colombet I, Walton RT, Rege-Walther M, Burnand B, Durieux P (2013) Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(CD002894):24218045

    Google Scholar 

  25. Johansson H, Oden A, Lorentzon M, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Karlsson MK, Mellstrom D (2015) Is the Swedish FRAX model appropriate for Swedish immigrants? Osteoporos Int 26:2617–2622, 26018091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shepstone L, Fordham R, Lenaghan E et al (2012) A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening older women for the prevention of fractures: rationale, design and methods for the SCOOP study. Osteoporos Int 23:2507–2515, 22314936

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Rick Cusimano and Tia Chapman at Richlyn Systems for the expert advice on the interpretation of web activity data and Google Analytics in particular.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK

    E. V. McCloskey, H. Johansson & J. A. Kanis

  2. Centre for Integrated Research into Musculoskeletal Ageing, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK

    E. V. McCloskey

  3. Academic Unit of Metabolic Bone Diseases, Metabolic Bone Centre, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK

    E. V. McCloskey

  4. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    N. C. Harvey

  5. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

    N. C. Harvey

  6. Department of Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK

    J. Compston

Authors
  1. E. V. McCloskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. C. Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Compston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. V. McCloskey.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Eugene V McCloskey, Helena Johannson, Nicholas C Harvey and John A Kanis are involved in the development of FRAX. Eugene V McCloskey, Nicholas C Harvey and John A Kanis are also members of the NOGG Advisory Group, and John A Kanis and Juliet Compston are members of the NOGG Guideline Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCloskey, E.V., Johansson, H., Harvey, N.C. et al. Access to fracture risk assessment by FRAX and linked National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidance in the UK—an analysis of anonymous website activity. Osteoporos Int 28, 71–76 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3696-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3696-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation