BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESOsteoporosis is common in Saudi Arabia and the burden of management in an aging population will increase in coming decades. There is still no national policy nor consensus on screening for this silent disease. The objective of this analysis was to determine from the published data the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in Saudi Arabians, the prevalence of secondary osteoporosis, and the prevalence of osteoporosis-related fractures (ORF). We also sought to determine the best age to begin and best modality for screening.METHODSData Sources were MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1991 to May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1952 to May 2011), and the Science Citation Index (1966 to May 2011), published data from the Saudi Medical Journal (1985–2011) and Annals of Saudi Medicine (1985–2011). We selected English-language articles with at least 100 Saudi individuals. Two authors independently reviewed articles and abstracted data.RESULTSThe authors identified 36 potentially relevant articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Of 5160 healthy women 50 to 79 years of age (mean, SD: 56.8 [2.7]), 36.6% (6.6%) were osteopenic and 34.0% (8.5%) were osteoporotic. In three studies on males (n=822), the prevalence of osteopenia was 46.3% and osteoporosis 30.7%. Males had a significantly higher frequency of osteopenia in comparison to females (P=<.001 95% CI<−0.0333), The mean age of the patients with secondary osteoporosis was 37.4 (13.5, 18–57) years, with the osteoporosis in 46.4% and osteopenia in 34.1%. In 5 studies of ORF, the incidence of vertebral fractures was between 20%–24%.CONCLUSIONThe currently available literature on Saudi Arabian population suggests that the ideal age for screening for low bone mass among the Saudi population should be earlier (55 years) than the ≥65 years in Western countries. Both quatitative ultrasound and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry could be used for screening. The relatively small number of studies on Saudi Arabians and the different machines used for diagnosis limited the authors ability make conclusions with surety.
Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of heel pain. Despite extensive efforts foot surgeons continue to debate the best modality of treatment. Analgesics, shoe inserts, stretching exercises, steroid injection, night splints, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy have proved effective in one group but fail in others. This study evaluated the efficacy of EZStep, a new foot brace for the management of plantar fasciitis. A total of 198 patients were randomized in 2 groups; group 1 (study group) received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 4-6 weeks) and EZStep whereas group 2 (control group) received either NSAID and physiotherapy alone (2A) or NSAID, physiotherapy, and local steroid injection (2B). None of the patients received over-the-counter insoles or strapping of plantar arch to avoid any bias in randomization. Evaluations included measurement of weight and height, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SFMPQ). After 8 weeks, patients were reevaluated, and assessment for the VAS and SFMPQ with treatment outcome was performed. Patients with VAS scores ≤3 were considered as excellent, ≥4 as good, and ≥7 as poor. The posttreatment evaluation showed that VAS scores were in the range from 2.97 ± 1.06 to 7.64 ± 2.9 (2A), P = .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) <-4.104; for 2B P = .001, CI <-2.44, and SFMPQ was 21.7 ± 4.5 and 69.2 ± 5.8 (group 2A; P = .001, 95% CI <-46.44). Compared with group 2B the SFMPQ was 66.5 ± 4.3 (P = .001, 95% CI <-30.720). In group 1 as per VAS, 86 (73.5%) were evaluated as excellent, 15 (12.8%) as good, and 16 (13.6%) as poor. Our study shows that the regular use of EZStep with short course of NSAIDs (4-6 weeks) was effective in ameliorating symptoms in more than 85% of patients suffering from plantar fasciitis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.