Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies that assessed the effect of fracture liaison service care
| References (year) | Country | Data collection (FLS ) | Follow-up (both groups) | Comparator | Inclusion and exclusion criteria (both group) | Number of participants | Female | Attendance proportion % (FLS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion | Exclusion | No-FLS | FLS | No-FLS (%) | FLS (%) | ||||||
| Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | |||||||||||
| Huntjens et al. (2011) [19] | The Netherlands | Prospective | 2 years | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥ 50 years presenting with a NVF at ED | Patients with a pathological, a clinical vertebral, or a skull fracture. For FLS group, patients were also excluded if they were selected to the no-FLS group | 1920 | 1335 | 74.6 | 72.5 | 68 |
| Ruggiero et al. (2015) [20] | Italy | Prospective | 1 year | Pre-FPS vs. post-FPS | Patients ≥ 65 years with proximal hip fracture at orthopedic or traumatology department | NR | 172 | 210 | 78.5 | 71.9 | NR |
| Amphansap et al. (2016) [21] | Thailand | Prospective | 1 year | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with hip fracture due to low energy trauma | Patients with a fracture due to high energy trauma, secondary osteoporosis, and bone tumors | 120 | 75 | 73 | 84 | NR |
| Axelsson et al. (2016) [22] | Sweden | Prospective | 344 days | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a hip, vertebra, shoulder, wrist, or pelvis fracture at the ED or orthopedic department | Patients with pathological fractures or who deceased prior to DXA referral | 2713 | 2616 | 73 | 74 | NR |
| Hawley et al. (2016) [23] | UK | Retrospective | 2 years | Pre- vs. post-FLS (OG) | Patients ≥ 60 years with a primary hip fracture | NR | NR | 33,152 | NR | 75 | NR |
| Bachour et al. (2017) [1] | Lebanon | Retrospective | 2 years | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a MTF at ED | NR | 100 | 98 | 69 | 80 | 82 |
| Davidson et al. (2017) [24] | Australia | Prospective | 3 years | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥45 years with a MTF (femur, tibia and fibula, ankle, pelvis, humerus, and wrist) | Patients with a pathological fracture (vertebral, clavicle, and rib) or if they were deceased | 47 | 93 | 80.9 | 75.3 | NR |
| Henderson et al. (2017) [25] | Ireland | Prospective | 1 year | Pre-OG vs. post-OG | Patients with hip fracture (fractured neck of femur) | NR | 248 | 206 | 66 | 73 | NR |
| Singh et al. (2019) [26] | Canada | Prospective | 6 months | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a MTF (wrist, humerus, pelvis, hip, or vertebrae) at orthopedic department | Patients with a significant trauma or an underlying disease other than osteoporosis that leads to increased bone fragility, and patients had cognitive dysfunction or insufficient English language skills | 65 | 130 | 85 | 84 | NR |
| Wasfie et al. (2019) [27] | USA | Retrospective | 2 years | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients with a vertebral compression fracture with follow-up at the neurosurgery department | NR | 150 | 215 | 69 | 71 | NR |
| González-Quevedo et al. (2020) [28] | Spain | Prospective | 1 year | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥60 years with a hip fracture | Patients with pathological fractures | 357 | 367 | 80 | 79 | 86 |
| Shin et al. (2020) [29] | Korea | Retrospective | 4 years | Pre- vs. post-active osteoporosis care | Patients ≥60 years with DRF caused by minor trauma | Patients with high energy trauma, multiple fractures, or injuries caused by motor vehicle accident or fall | 205 | 852 | 80.9 | 85.6 | NR |
| Hospital with FLS vs. hospital without FLS | |||||||||||
| Huntjens et al. (2014) [30] | The Netherlands | Prospective | 2 years | Without FLS vs. with FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a NVF | Patients with pathological or vertebral fractures | 1910 | 1412 | 70 | 73 | 68 |
| Nakayama et al. (2016) [31] | Australia | Retrospective | 3 years | Without FLS vs. with FLS | Patients ≥50 years with MTF at ED | Patients without MTF and patients diagnosed as having a fracture but their imaging reported no fracture | 416 | 515 | 73.6 | 75.3 | 20 |
| Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS and hospital with FLS vs. hospital without FLS | |||||||||||
| (a) Inderjeeth et al. (2018) [12] | Australia | Prospective | 3 months and 12 months | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with MTF at ED | Patients without MTF but with fractures of the hands, feet or skull, and patients in high-level residential aged care facilities | 105 | 241 | 72 | 82 | 69 |
| (b) Inderjeeth et al. (2018) [12] | Australia | Prospective | 3 months and 12 months | Without FLS vs. with FLS | Patients ≥50 years with MTF at ED | Patients without MTF but with fractures of the hands, feet or skull, and patients in high-level residential aged care facilities | 55 | 241 | 89 | 82 | 69 |
| (a) Axelsson et al. (2020) [32] | Sweden | Retrospective | 2.2 years | Pre-FLS vs. post-FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a major osteoporotic fracture | Patients with malignancies and obvious high-energy fractures | 4828 | 10,621 | 76 | 77 | NR |
| (b) Axelsson et al. (2020) [32] | Sweden | Retrospective | 2.2 years | Without FLS vs. with FLS | Patients ≥50 years with a major osteoporotic fracture | Patients with malignancies and obvious high-energy fractures | 5634 | 15,449 | 76 | 76 | NR |
BMD bone mineral density, FLS fracture liaison service, NVF non-vertebral fracture, FPS fracture prevention service, ED emergency department, MTF minimal trauma fracture, DRF distal radius fracture, OG orthogeriatric service, DXA dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, NR not reported, vs. versus