Search

Alexandra O Kobza,1 Deena Herman,1 Alexandra Papaioannou,2,3 Arthur N Lau,1 Jonathan D Adachi1 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 2Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 3Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Jonathan D Adachi 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 1Y2, CanadaTel +1 905-529-1317Fax +1 905-521-1297Email jd.adachi@sympatico.caAbstract: Glucocorticoids are effective immunosuppressants used in a wide variety of diseases. Their use results in secondary osteoporosis in about 30– 50% of chronic glucocorticoid users. Glucocorticoids cause a rapid decline in bone strength within the first 3– 6 months mostly due to increased bone resorption by osteoclasts. This is followed by a more gradual loss of bone partly due to decreased osteoblastogenesis and osteoblast and osteocyte apoptosis. The loss of bone strength induced by glucocorticoids is not fully captured by bone mineral density measurements. Other tools such as the trabecular bone score and advanced imaging techniques give insight into bone quality; however, these are not used widely in clinical practice. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis should be seen as a widely preventable disease. Currently, only about 15% of chronic glucocorticoid users are receiving optimal care. Glucocorticoids should be prescribed at the lowest dose and shortest duration. All patients should be counselled on lifestyle measures to maintain bone strength including nutrition and weight-bearing exercise. Pharmacological therapy should be considered for all patients at moderate to high risk of fracture as there is evidence for the prevention of bone loss and fractures with a favourable safety profile. Oral bisphosphonates are the current mainstay of therapy, whereas osteoanabolic agents may be considered for those at highest risk of fracture.Keywords: glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, bone mineral density, fracture, bisphosphonate

Yanling Jin,1,* Nitika Sanger,2,* Ieta Shams,3,* Candice Luo,4,* Hamnah Shahid,5,* Guowei Li,1,* Meha Bhatt,1 Laura Zielinski,6 Bianca Bantoto,7 Mei Wang,1 Luciana PF Abbade,8 Ikunna Nwosu,4 Alvin Leenus,1 Lawrence Mbuagbaw,1 Muhammad Maaz,1 Yaping Chang,1 Guangwen Sun,1 Mitchell AH Levine,1,9 Jonathan D Adachi1,9 Lehana Thabane,1,9 Zainab Samaan1,10 1Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 2Department of Medical Science, Medical Sciences Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 3Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 4Faculty of Health Sciences, Bachelors of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 5Department of Arts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 6Department of Neuroscience, McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 7Department of Science, Honours Integrated Sciences Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 8Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil; 9St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 10Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada *These authors contributed equally to this work Purpose: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. Materials and methods: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Results: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. Conclusion: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended. Keywords: guidelines, adherence, review, CONSORT

Guowei Li,1–3 Yanling Jin,1 Lawrence Mbuagbaw,1,2 Lisa Dolovich,1,2,4 Jonathan D Adachi,2,5 Mitchell AH Levine,1–3,5 Deborah Cook,1,2,5 Zainab Samaan,1,2 Lehana Thabane1,2 1Department of Health Research Methods, Impact and Evidence, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 2St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 3Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 4Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 5Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Background: Disseminating research protocols, processes, methods or findings via peer-reviewed publications has substantive merits and benefits to various stakeholders. Purpose: In this article, we share strategies to enhance research publication contents (ie, what to write about) and to facilitate scientific writing (ie, how to write) in health research collaborations. Methods: Empirical experience sharing. Results: To enhance research publication contents, we encourage identifying appropriate opportunities for publications, publishing protocols ahead of results papers, seeking publications related to methodological issues, considering justified secondary analyses, and sharing academic process or experience. To advance writing, we suggest setting up scientific writing as a goal, seeking an appropriate mentorship, making full use of scientific meetings and presentations, taking some necessary formal training in areas such as effective communication and time and stress management, and embracing the iterative process of writing. Conclusion: All the strategies we share are dependent upon each other; and they advocate gradual academic accomplishments through study and training in a “success-breeds-success” way. It is expected that the foregoing shared strategies in this paper, together with other previous guidance articles, can assist one with enhancing research publications, and eventually one’s academic success in health research collaborations. Keywords: research publication, scientific writing, health research collaboration

Jonathan D Adachi1, Robert G Josse2, R Graham G Russell3,41Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 2Osteoporosis Center, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, Oxford University Institute of Musculoskeletal Sciences (The Botnar Research Centre), Nuffield Orthopaedic Center, Oxford, UK; 4The Mellanby Center For Bone Research, Department of Human Metabolism, The University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UKAbstract: Osteoporosis is a growing problem worldwide, linked to an increasingly aging population. Despite the availability of a wide variety of treatments for osteoporosis, a significant number of patients are either not being prescribed treatment or discontinue therapy as early as 6 months after initiation. The reasons for a lack of adherence are many but poor adherence increases the risk of fracture and, therefore, the disease burden to the patient and society. Results from large-scale, randomized clinical studies have shown that different osteoporosis treatments are efficacious in reducing the risk of fracture. Studies assessing the effects of discontinuing osteoporosis therapies show that some treatments appear to continue to protect patients from the risk of future fracture even when treatment is stopped. However, these trials involve patients who have been compliant with treatment for between 2 and 5 years, a situation not reflective of real-world clinical practice. In reality, patients who discontinue therapy within the first 6 months may never achieve the optimum protection from fracture regardless of which treatment they have been prescribed. Clinicians need to develop management strategies to enable patients to adhere to their treatment. This will ultimately result in better prevention of fracture and a lower burden of disease to society and patients.Keywords: osteoporosis, adherence, treatment, persistence, compliance, fracture

Abstract Background The presence of a fragility fracture is a major risk factor for osteoporosis, and should be an indicator for osteoporosis diagnosis and therapy. However, the extent to which patients who fracture are assessed and treated for osteoporosis is not clear. Methods We performed a review of the literature to identify the practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in adults over the age of 40 who experience a fragility fracture in Canada. Searches were performed in MEDLINE (1966 to January 2, 2003) and CINAHL (1982 to February 1, 2003) databases. Results There is evidence of a care gap between the occurrence of a fragility fracture and the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in Canada. The proportion of individuals with a fragility fracture who received an osteoporosis diagnostic test or physician diagnosis ranged from 1.7% to 50%. Therapies such as hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates or calcitonin were being prescribed to 5.2% to 37.5% of patients. Calcium and vitamin D supplement intake was variable, and ranged between 2.8% to 61.6% of patients. Conclusion Many Canadians who experience fragility fracture are not receiving osteoporosis management for the prevention of future fractures.

Abstract Background The identification of new methods of evaluating patients with osteoporotic fracture should focus on their usefulness in clinical situations such that they are easily measured and applicable to all patients. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the association between iliocostal distance and vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients seen in a clinical setting. Methods Patient data were obtained from the Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO). A total of 549 patients including 508 women and 41 men participated in this cross-sectional study. There were 142 women and 18 men with prevalent vertebral fractures, and 185 women and 21 men with prevalent non-vertebral fractures. Results In women multivariable regression analysis showed that iliocostal distance was negatively associated with the number of vertebral fractures (-0.18, CI: -0.27, -0.09; adjusted for bone mineral density at the Ward's triangle, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, etidronate use, and calcium supplement use) and for the number of non-vertebral fractures (-0.09, CI: -0.15, -0.03; adjusted for bone mineral density at the trochanter, cerebrovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and etidronate use). However, in men, multivariable regression analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between iliocostal distance and the number of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Conclusions The examination of iliocostal distance may be a useful clinical tool for assessment of the possibility of vertebral fractures. The identification of high-risk patients is important to effectively use the growing number of available osteoporosis therapies.

In this study, we report that self-perception of fracture risk captures some aspect of fracture risk not currently measured using conventional fracture prediction tools and is associated with improved medication uptake. It suggests that adequate appreciation of fracture risk may be beneficial and lead to greater healthcare engagement and treatment.IntroductionThis study aimed to assess how well self-perception of fracture risk, and fracture risk as estimated by the fracture prediction tool FRAX, related to fracture incidence and uptake and persistence of anti-osteoporosis medication among women participating in the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW).MethodsGLOW is an international cohort study involving 723 physician practices across 10 countries in Europe, North America and Australia. Aged ≥ 55 years, 60,393 women completed baseline questionnaires detailing medical history, including co-morbidities, fractures and self-perceived fracture risk (SPR). Annual follow-up included self-reported incident fractures and anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) use. We calculated FRAX risk without bone mineral density measurement.ResultsOf the 39,241 women with at least 1 year of follow-up data, 2132 (5.4%) sustained an incident major osteoporotic fracture over 5 years of follow-up. Within each SPR category, risk of fracture increased as the FRAX categorisation of risk increased. In GLOW, only 11% of women with a lower baseline SPR were taking AOM at baseline, compared with 46% of women with a higher SPR. AOM use tended to increase in the years after a reported fracture. However, women with a lower SPR who were fractured still reported lower AOM rates than women with or without a fracture but had a higher SPR.ConclusionsThese results suggest that SPR captures some aspect of fracture risk not currently measured using conventional fracture prediction tools and is also associated with improved medication uptake.

IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic autoimmune disease of unknown cause, characterized by a chronic, symmetric, and progressive inflammatory polyarthritis. One of the most deleterious effects induced by the chronic inflammation of RA is bone loss. During the last 15 years, the better knowledge of the cytokine network involved in RA allowed the development of potent inhibitors of the inflammatory process classified as biological DMARDs. These new drugs are very effective in the inhibition of inflammation, but there are only few studies regarding their role in bone protection. The principal aim of this review was to show the evidence of the principal biologic therapies and bone loss in RA, focusing on their effects on bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, and fragility fractures.MethodsUsing the PICOST methodology, two coauthors (PC, LM-S) conducted the search using the following MESH terms: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, clinical trials, TNF- antagonists, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab, IL-6 antagonists, IL-1 antagonists, abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, bone mineral density, bone markers, and fractures. The search was conducted electronically and manually from the following databases: Medline and Science Direct. The search period included articles from 2003 to 2015. The selection included only original adult human research written in English. Titles were retrieved and the same two authors independently selected the relevant studies for a full text. The retrieved selected studies were also reviewed completing the search for relevant articles. The first search included 904 titles from which 253 titles were selected. The agreement on the selection among researchers resulted in a Kappa statistic of 0.95 (p < 0.000). Only 248 abstracts evaluated were included in the acronym PICOST. The final selection included only 28 studies, derived from the systematic search. Additionally, a manual search in the bibliography of the selected articles was made and included into the text and into the section of "small molecules of new agents."ConclusionTreatment with biologic drugs is associated with the decrease in bone loss. Studies with anti-TNF blocking agents show preservation or increase in spine and hip BMD and also a better profile of bone markers. Most of these studies were performed with infliximab. Only three epidemiological studies analyzed the effect on fractures after anti-TNF blocking agent's treatment. IL-6 blocking agents also showed improvement in localized bone loss not seen with anti-TNF agents. There are a few studies with rituximab and abatacept. Although several studies reported favorable actions of biologic therapies on bone protection, there are still unmet needs for studies regarding their actions on the risk of bone fractures.

UnlabelledAccurate patient risk perception of adverse health events promotes greater autonomy over, and motivation towards, health-related lifestyles.IntroductionWe compared self-perceived fracture risk and 3-year incident fracture rates in postmenopausal women with a range of morbidities in the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW).MethodsGLOW is an international cohort study involving 723 physician practices across ten countries (Europe, North America, Australasia); 60,393 women aged ≥55 years completed baseline questionnaires detailing medical history and self-perceived fracture risk. Annual follow-up determined self-reported incident fractures.ResultsIn total 2,945/43,832 (6.8%) sustained an incident fracture over 3 years. All morbidities were associated with increased fracture rates, particularly Parkinson's disease (hazard ratio [HR]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.89; 2.78-5.44), multiple sclerosis (2.70; 1.90-3.83), cerebrovascular events (2.02; 1.67-2.46), and rheumatoid arthritis (2.15; 1.53-3.04) (all p < 0.001). Most individuals perceived their fracture risk as similar to (46%) or lower than (36%) women of the same age. While increased self-perceived fracture risk was strongly associated with incident fracture rates, only 29% experiencing a fracture perceived their risk as increased. Under-appreciation of fracture risk occurred for all morbidities, including neurological disease, where women with low self-perceived fracture risk had a fracture HR 2.39 (CI 1.74-3.29) compared with women without morbidities.ConclusionsPostmenopausal women with morbidities tend to under-appreciate their risk, including in the context of neurological diseases, where fracture rates were highest in this cohort. This has important implications for health education, particularly among women with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, or cerebrovascular disease.

UnlabelledThe Committee of Scientific Advisors of International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) recommends that papers describing the descriptive epidemiology of osteoporosis using bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck include T-scores derived from an international reference standard.IntroductionThe prevalence of osteoporosis as defined by the T-score is inconsistently reported in the literature which makes comparisons between studies problematic.MethodsThe Epidemiology and Quality of Life Working Group of IOF convened to make its recommendations and endorsement sought thereafter from the Committee of Scientific Advisors of IOF.ResultsThe Committee of Scientific Advisors of IOF recommends that papers describing the descriptive epidemiology of osteoporosis using BMD at the femoral neck include T-scores derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III reference database for femoral neck measurements in Caucasian women aged 20-29 years.ConclusionsIt is expected that the use of the reference standard will help resolve difficulties in the comparison of results between studies and the comparative assessment of new technologies.

UnlabelledWe evaluated healthcare utilization associated with treating fracture types in >51,000 women aged ≥55 years. Over the course of 1 year, there were five times more non-hip, non-spine fractures than hip or spine fractures, resulting in twice as many days of hospitalization and rehabilitation/nursing home care for non-hip, non-spine fractures.IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to evaluate medical healthcare utilization associated with treating several types of fractures in women ≥55 years from various geographic regions.MethodsInformation from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) was collected via self-administered patient questionnaires at baseline and year 1 (n = 51,491). Self-reported clinically recognized low-trauma fractures at year 1 were classified as incident spine, hip, wrist/hand, arm/shoulder, pelvis, rib, leg, and other fractures. Healthcare utilization data were self-reported and included whether the fracture was treated at a doctor's office/clinic or at a hospital. Patients were asked if they had undergone surgery or been treated at a rehabilitation center or nursing home.ResultsDuring 1-year follow-up, there were 195 spine, 134 hip, and 1,654 non-hip, non-spine fractures. Clinical vertebral fractures resulted in 617 days of hospitalization and 512 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care; hip fractures accounted for 1,306 days of hospitalization and 1,650 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care. Non-hip, non-spine fractures resulted in 3,805 days in hospital and 5,186 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care.ConclusionsWhile hip and vertebral fractures are well recognized for their associated increase in health resource utilization, non-hip, non-spine fractures, by virtue of their 5-fold greater number, require significantly more healthcare resources.

UnlabelledAmong 50,461 postmenopausal women, 1,822 fractures occurred (57% minor non-hip, non-vertebral [NHNV], 26% major NHNV, 10% spine, 7% hip) over 1 year. Spine fractures had the greatest detrimental effect on EQ-5D, followed by major NHNV and hip fractures. Decreases in physical function and health status were greatest for spine or hip fractures.IntroductionThere is growing evidence that NHNV fractures result in substantial morbidity and healthcare costs. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the effect of these NHNV fractures on quality of life.MethodsWe analyzed the 1-year incidences of hip, spine, major NHNV (pelvis/leg, shoulder/arm) and minor NHNV (wrist/hand, ankle/foot, rib/clavicle) fractures among women from the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was analyzed using the EuroQol EQ-5D tool and the SF-36 health survey.ResultsAmong 50,461 women analyzed, there were 1,822 fractures (57% minor NHNV, 26% major NHNV, 10% spine, 7% hip) over 1 year. Spine fractures had the greatest detrimental effect on EQ-5D summary scores, followed by major NHNV and hip fractures. The number of women with mobility problems increased most for those with major NHNV and spine fractures (both +8%); spine fractures were associated with the largest increases in problems with self care (+11%), activities (+14%), and pain/discomfort (+12%). Decreases in physical function and health status were greatest for those with spine or hip fractures. Multivariable modeling found that EQ-5D reduction was greatest for spine fractures, followed by hip and major/minor NHNV. Statistically significant reductions in SF-36 physical function were found for spine fractures, and were borderline significant for major NHNV fractures.ConclusionThis prospective study shows that NHNV fractures have a detrimental effect on HRQL. Efforts to optimize the care of osteoporosis patients should include the prevention of NHNV fractures.

UnlabelledWe examined variations in proportions of hip fractures and major fractures among postmenopausal women using the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). The proportion of major fractures that were hip fractures varied with age and region, whereas variations in the proportion of fractures that were major fractures appeared modest.IntroductionIn many countries, the World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool calculates the probability of major fractures by assuming a uniform age-associated proportion of major fractures that are hip fractures in different countries. We further explored this assumption, using data from the GLOW.MethodsGLOW is an observational population-based study of 60,393 non-institutionalized women aged ≥55 years who had visited practices within the previous 2 years. Main outcome measures were self-reported prevalent fractures after the age of 45 years and incident fractures during the 2 years of follow-up.ResultsThe adjusted proportion of prevalent and incident major fractures after the age of 45 years that were hip fractures was higher in North America (16%, 17%) than in northern (13%, 12%) and southern Europe (10%, 10%), respectively. The proportion of incident major fractures that were hip fractures increased more than five-fold with age, from 6.6% among 55-59-year-olds to 34% among those aged ≥85 years. Regional and age-associated variations in the proportion of all incident fractures that were major fractures were less marked, not exceeding 16% and 28%, respectively.ConclusionsThe data suggest that there may be regional differences in the proportion of major fractures that are hip fractures in postmenopausal women. In contrast, the regional and age-related variations in the proportion of fractures that are major fractures appear to be modest. However, because of the limited number of fractures in our sample, further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

UnlabelledWe compared self-perception of fracture risk with actual risk among 60,393 postmenopausal women aged ≥55 years, using data from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Most postmenopausal women with risk factors failed to appreciate their actual risk for fracture. Improved education about osteoporosis risk factors is needed.IntroductionThis study seeks to compare self-perception of fracture risk with actual risk among postmenopausal women using data from GLOW.MethodsGLOW is an international, observational, cohort study involving 723 physician practices in 17 sites in ten countries in Europe, North America, and Australia. Participants included 60,393 women ≥55 years attended by their physician during the previous 24 months. The sample was enriched so that two thirds were ≥65 years. Baseline surveys were mailed October 2006 to February 2008. Main outcome measures were self-perception of fracture risk in women with elevated risk vs women of the same age and frequency of risk factors for fragility fracture.ResultsIn the overall study population, 19% (10,951/58,434) of women rated their risk of fracture as a little/much higher than that of women of the same age; 46% (27,138/58,434) said it was similar; 35% (20,345/58,434) believed it to be a little/much lower. Among women whose actual risk was increased based on the presence of any one of seven risk factors for fracture, the proportion who recognized their increased risk ranged from 19% for smokers to 39% for current users of glucocorticoid medication. Only 33% (4,185/12,612) of those with ≥2 risk factors perceived themselves as being at higher risk. Among women reporting a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis, only 25% and 43%, respectively, thought their risk was increased.ConclusionIn this international, observational study, most postmenopausal women with risk factors failed to appreciate their actual risk for fracture.

SummaryThe Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) is a prospective cohort study involving 723 physicians and 60,393 women subjects >or=55 years. The data will provide insights into the management of fracture risk in older women over 5 years, patient experience with prevention and treatment, and distribution of risk among older women on an international basis.IntroductionData from cohort studies describing the distribution of osteoporosis-related fractures and risk factors are not directly comparable and do not compare regional differences in patterns of patient management and fracture outcomes.MethodsThe GLOW is a prospective, multinational, observational cohort study. Practices typical of each region were identified through primary care networks organized for administrative, research, or educational purposes. Noninstitutionalized patients visiting each practice within the previous 2 years were eligible. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed, with 2:1 oversampling of women >or=65 years. Follow-up questionnaires will be sent at 12-month intervals for 5 years.ResultsA total of 723 physicians at 17 sites in ten countries agreed to participate. Baseline surveys were mailed (October 2006 to February 2008) to 140,416 subjects. After the exclusion of 3,265 women who were ineligible or had died, 60,393 agreed to participate.ConclusionsGLOW will provide contemporary information on patterns of management of fracture risk in older women over a 5-year period. The collection of data in a similar manner in ten countries will permit comparisons of patient experience with prevention and treatment and provide insights into the distribution of risk among older women on an international basis.