• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

女性对骨质疏松症治疗的价值观和偏好:系统评价。

Women's Values and Preferences Regarding Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

出版信息

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 May 1;104(5):1631-1636. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-00193.

DOI:10.1210/jc.2019-00193
PMID:30907968
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7296202/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several treatments are available to reduce the risk of fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis. The choice of treatment requires knowledge of patients' values and preferences. The aim of the present study was to summarize what is known about the values and preferences relevant to the management of osteoporosis in women.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases for studies reported in any language that had included women who had already started or were about to start any pharmacological therapy for osteoporosis. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The results were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

We included 26 studies reporting on 15,348 women (mean age, 66 years). The women considered the effectiveness and adverse events equally, followed by the convenience of taking the drug and its effect on daily routine (less frequent dosing was preferred, the oral route was preferred, and the injectable route was preferred over oral if given less frequently). The treatment cost and duration were less important factors for decision making. Fear of breast cancer and fear of resuming uterine bleeding were common reasons for not choosing estrogen therapy. Calcium and vitamin D were viewed as safe and natural. Across the studies, the preferences were not affected by age, previous drug exposure, or employment status.

CONCLUSIONS

Women starting osteoporosis medications value effectiveness and side effects equally and prefer medications given less frequently. Injectable drugs appear acceptable if given less frequently. More research on patient values and preferences is needed to guide decision making in osteoporosis.

摘要

背景

有多种治疗方法可降低与骨质疏松症相关的脆性骨折风险。治疗方法的选择需要了解患者的价值观和偏好。本研究的目的是总结与女性骨质疏松症管理相关的价值观和偏好。

方法

我们全面检索了多种数据库,以获取报告任何语言的研究,这些研究纳入了已经开始或即将开始任何骨质疏松症药物治疗的女性。由两名评审员独立选择研究并提取数据。结果以叙述性方式综合。

结果

我们纳入了 26 项研究,共纳入了 15348 名女性(平均年龄 66 岁)。女性同等考虑药物的有效性和不良反应,其次是药物服用的便利性及其对日常生活的影响(更喜欢剂量较少、更喜欢口服途径、如果较少频率给予则更喜欢注射途径而不是口服途径)。治疗费用和持续时间是不太重要的决策因素。对乳腺癌的恐惧和对恢复子宫出血的恐惧是不选择雌激素治疗的常见原因。钙和维生素 D 被认为是安全和自然的。在所有研究中,偏好不受年龄、先前药物暴露或就业状况的影响。

结论

开始使用骨质疏松症药物的女性同等重视药物的有效性和不良反应,并且更喜欢剂量较少的药物。如果频率较低,注射药物似乎可以接受。需要更多关于患者价值观和偏好的研究来指导骨质疏松症的决策。

相似文献

1
Women's Values and Preferences Regarding Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Review.女性对骨质疏松症治疗的价值观和偏好:系统评价。
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 May 1;104(5):1631-1636. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-00193.
2
Summary of AHRQ's comparative effectiveness review of treatment to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis: update of the 2007 report.美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)对低骨密度或骨质疏松症男性和女性预防骨折治疗的比较效果评价总结:2007年报告更新版
J Manag Care Pharm. 2012 May;18(4 Suppl B):S1-15; discussion S13. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2012.18.s4-b.1.
3
Management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and the prevention of fractures.绝经后骨质疏松症的管理及骨折预防
Panminerva Med. 2014 Jun;56(2):115-31. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
4
Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline.绝经后妇女骨质疏松症的药物治疗:内分泌学会临床实践指南*。
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 May 1;104(5):1595-1622. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-00221.
5
An evaluation of patients' preferences for osteoporosis medications and their attributes: the PREFER-International study.患者对骨质疏松症药物及其属性的偏好评估:PREFER-国际研究
Clin Ther. 2007 Mar;29(3):488-503. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(07)80087-7.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study.美国骨质疏松症药物属性患者偏好评估:PREFER-US研究结果
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 May;22(5):949-60. doi: 10.1185/030079906X104740.
8
Long-Term Drug Therapy and Drug Discontinuations and Holidays for Osteoporosis Fracture Prevention: A Systematic Review.长期药物治疗和药物停药及停药期用于预防骨质疏松性骨折:系统评价。
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 2;171(1):37-50. doi: 10.7326/M19-0533. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
9
A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.阿仑膦酸盐、依替膦酸盐、利塞膦酸盐、雷洛昔芬和特立帕肽用于预防和治疗绝经后骨质疏松症的系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jun;9(22):1-160. doi: 10.3310/hta9220.
10
Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysis.患者对不同种族和族裔骨质疏松症药物属性的重视程度:使用联合分析研究骨质疏松症药物偏好。
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jul;24(7):2067-77. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2241-1. Epub 2012 Dec 18.

引用本文的文献

1
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
CMAJ. 2023 Nov 26;195(46):E1585-E1603. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.221647-f.
2
Clinical practice guideline for management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Canada: 2023 update.加拿大骨质疏松症和骨折预防管理临床实践指南:2023 年更新版。
CMAJ. 2023 Oct 10;195(39):E1333-E1348. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.221647.
3
Disease Burden and Treatment Preferences Amongst Postmenopausal Women with Severe Osteoporosis in Greece.希腊重度骨质疏松症绝经后女性的疾病负担与治疗偏好
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023 Jan 10;17:107-118. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S385351. eCollection 2023.
4
Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.《成人原发性骨质疏松症或低骨量的药物治疗:美国医师学院临床实践指南》。
Ann Intern Med. 2023 Feb;176(2):224-238. doi: 10.7326/M22-1034. Epub 2023 Jan 3.
5
Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers.骨质疏松症共同决策的现状:患者决策辅助工具和决策驱动因素的综合文献综述
Health Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 21;5(6):e849. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.849. eCollection 2022 Nov.
6
Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.系统评价中总结离散选择实验的方法:范围综述。
Patient. 2022 Nov;15(6):629-639. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
7
The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.临床医生骨质疏松症防治指南。
Osteoporos Int. 2022 Oct;33(10):2049-2102. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05900-y. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
8
Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments.通过序贯治疗管理极高风险骨质疏松性骨折患者。
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022 Apr;34(4):695-714. doi: 10.1007/s40520-022-02100-4. Epub 2022 Mar 24.
9
Clinical Practice Guidelines on Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: *An Executive Summary and Recommendations - Update 2019-2020.《绝经后骨质疏松症临床实践指南:执行摘要与推荐 - 2019 - 2020年更新》
J Midlife Health. 2020 Apr-Jun;11(2):96-112. doi: 10.4103/jmh.JMH_143_20. Epub 2020 Aug 10.
10
Health Literacy of Osteoporosis Risks among Caregivers Serving in Disability Care Facilities.照料残疾人士的护理人员对骨质疏松风险的健康素养。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 7;17(13):4903. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134903.

本文引用的文献

1
Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual).在卫生和社会干预决策中使用定性证据:一种评估定性证据综合结果可信度的方法(GRADE-CERQual)
PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 27;12(10):e1001895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895. eCollection 2015 Oct.
2
GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.GRADE 指南:15. 从证据到推荐——推荐方向和强度的决定因素。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):726-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003. Epub 2013 Apr 6.
3
European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.欧洲绝经后妇女骨质疏松症的诊断和管理指南。
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jan;24(1):23-57. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2074-y. Epub 2012 Oct 19.
4
Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.临床综述。预防脆性骨折的药物治疗效果比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jun;97(6):1871-80. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-3060.
5
Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.患者在抗血栓治疗决策中的价值观和偏好:系统评价:《抗血栓治疗和血栓预防,第 9 版:美国胸科医师学会基于证据的临床实践指南》。
Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e1S-e23S. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2290.
6
Protocol--realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES).方案——现实主义和元叙述证据综合:不断发展的标准(RAMESES)。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Aug 16;11:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-115.
7
Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial.使用决策辅助工具改善骨质疏松症治疗决策:骨质疏松症选择随机试验。
Am J Med. 2011 Jun;124(6):549-56. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013.
8
Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.全科医生和患者对骨质疏松症预防性药物治疗的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211-9. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200927030-00004.
9
Alterations of cortical and trabecular architecture are associated with fractures in postmenopausal women, partially independent of decreased BMD measured by DXA: the OFELY study.皮质骨和小梁骨结构改变与绝经后女性骨折相关,部分独立于双能X线吸收法(DXA)测量的骨密度降低:OFELY研究。
J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Mar;22(3):425-33. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.061206.
10
Upper gastrointestinal tract safety of risedronate: a pooled analysis of 9 clinical trials.利塞膦酸盐的上消化道安全性:9项临床试验的汇总分析
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Mar;77(3):262-70. doi: 10.4065/77.3.262.