Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:343 (16 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.39486.653009.3A
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Järvinen et al remind us that falls assessment is too often ignored in people at high risk of fractures.1 However, we believe that falls assessment and prevention must be in addition to, and not at the expense of, osteoporosis treatment. The British Orthopaedic Association advocates a dual approach to fracture prevention,2 and indicators supporting both have been submitted for inclusion within the quality outcomes framework (QOF) in the UK.
We have high quality evidence for the secondary prevention of hip fractures with generic treatments endorsed as cost effective by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). We need more robust evidence linking falls interventions to the same outcomes. The studies listed by Järvinen et al do not support a claim for a 50% fracture reduction in community settings. This is the thrust of the paper by Gates and colleagues.3 Individual studies have shown that single and multifaceted interventions
Jonathan Bayly, associate lecturer, Tahir Masud, consultant physician
1 Faculty of Education Health and Sciences, University of Derby, Derby DE22 1GB, 2 Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham NG5 1PB
jonathan@bayly.org