Conclusion Most interventions did not report key outcomes .
Osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment intervention after hip or shoulder fracture. A comparison of two centres in the United Kingdom.
This study compares the investigation of and treatment for osteoporosis in two groups of fracture patients at two orthopaedic centres in the UK . One centre had a formal fracture liaison service ( FLS ) responsible for screening fracture patients for osteoporosis . The other centre relied upon individual clinicians to initiate investigation or treatment for osteoporosis in patients following fracture . Patients who had been treated in either centre for a proximal humeral or hip fracture during a 6-month period were followed up 6 months later to identify how many had received screening or treatment for osteoporosis . Information was retrieved from a prospect ively compiled data base or by postal question naire . The study revealed that in the centre with an FLS 85 % of patients with a proximal humeral fracture and 20 % with a hip fracture had been offered a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry ( DEXA ) scan . Approximately 50 % and 85 % , respectively , were receiving treatment for osteoporosis  6 months following their fracture . This compared with DEXA being offered to only 6 % and 9.7 % of humeral and hip fracture patients , respectively , and 20 % ( hip ) and 27 % ( proximal humerus ) receiving osteoporosis treatment in the other centre . The presence of an FLS result ed in a considerably higher proportion of patients receiving investigation and treatment for osteoporosis following a hip or proximal humeral fracture
Conclusion Most interventions did not report key outcomes .