This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that fracture liaison service (FLS) is associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures and mortality although the latter was only found in studies comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an FLS. Introduction To systematically review and evaluate the impact of fracture liaison services (FLSs) on subsequent fractures and mortality using meta-analysis. Methods A literature search was performed within PubMed and Embase to identify original articles published between January 1, 2010, and April 30, 2020, reporting the effect of FLSs on subsequent fractures and/or mortality. Only studies comparing FLS to no-FLS were included. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was conducted. The quality of studies was appraised after combining and modifying criteria of existing quality assessment tools. Results The search retrieved 955 published studies, of which 16 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies compared outcomes before (pre-FLS) and after (post-FLS) FLS implementation, two studies compared outcomes between hospitals with and without FLS, and two other studies performed both comparisons. In total, 18 comparisons of FLS and no-FLS care were reported. Follow-up time varied from 6 months to 4 years. Sixteen comparisons reported on subsequent fractures and 12 on mortality. The quality assessment revealed methodological issues in several criteria. Excluding studies with very high selection bias, the meta-analysis of nine comparisons (in eight papers) revealed that the FLS care was associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures (odds ratio: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.93, P=0.01). In studies with a follow-up > 2 years, a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures was captured for FLS care (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94, P=0.03), while in studies ≤ 2 years, there was no difference in the odds of subsequent fractures. No significant difference in the odds of mortality was observed (odds ratio: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.49-1.09, P=0.12) in the meta-analysis of eight comparisons (in seven papers). However, a significantly lower probability of mortality was identified in the six pre-post FLS comparisons (odds ratio: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44-0.95, P=0.03), but not in studies comparing hospitals with and without FLS. No difference was observed in mortality stratified by follow-up time. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that FLS care is associated with a significantly lower probability of subsequent fractures and mortality although the latter was only found in studies comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an FLS. The quality assessment revealed that some important methodological issues were unmet in the currently available studies. Recommendations to guide researchers to design high-quality studies for evaluation of FLS outcomes in the future were provided.

Using a discrete choice experiment, we aimed to assess patients' preferences with regard to adopting lifestyle behaviours to prevent osteoporotic fractures. Overall, the 1042 patients recruited from seven European countries were favourable to some lifestyle behaviours (i.e., engaging in moderate physical activity, taking calcium and vitamin D supplements, reducing their alcohol consumption and ensuring a normal body weight). Introduction Alongside medical therapy, healthy lifestyle habits are recommended for preventing osteoporotic fractures. In this study, we aimed to assess patients' preferences with regard to adopting lifestyle changes to prevent osteoporotic fractures. Methods A discrete choice experiment was conducted in seven European countries. Patients with or at risk of osteoporosis were asked to indicate to what extent they would be motivated to adhere to 16 lifestyle packages that differed in various levels of 6 attributes. The attributes and levels proposed were physical activity (levels: not included, moderate or high), calcium and vitamin D status (levels: not included, taking supplements, improving nutrition and assuring a minimal exposure to sunlight daily), smoking (levels: not included, quit smoking), alcohol (levels: not included, moderate consumption), weight reduction (levels: not included, ensure a healthy body weight) and fall prevention (levels: not included, receiving general advice or following a 1-day fall prevention program). A conditional logit model was used to estimate a patient's relative preferences for the various attributes across all participants and per country. Results In total, 1042 patients completed the questionnaire. Overall, patients were favourable to lifestyle behaviours for preventing osteoporotic fractures. However, among the lifestyle behaviours proposed, patients were consensually not prone to engage in a high level of physical activity. In addition, in Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, patients were also not inclined to participate in a 1-day fall prevention program and Belgian, Swiss and Dutch patients were not prone to adhere to a well-balanced nutritional program. Nevertheless, we observed globally that patients felt positively about reducing their alcohol consumption, engaging in moderate physical activity, taking calcium and vitamin D supplements and ensuring a normal body weight, all measures aimed at preventing fractures. Conclusions In a patient-centred approach, fracture prevention should take these considerations and preferences into account.

Considering the limited availability of healthcare resources alongside major innovations in the management of osteoporosis, economic evaluations have played an increasing role in decision-making. Studies have particularly been conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis medications [1, 2], fracture liaison services [3], screening strategies [4,5], or to define intervention thresholds [6]. The low quality of input parameters and poor reporting of these economic evaluations may, however, hamper their use by decisionmakers and health professionals.Using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement [7] (which was regarded as minimum amount of information required for reporting economic evaluations), in 2015, Hiligsmann et al.[1] assessed the quality of reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses of anti-osteoporosis medications published between 2008 and 2013, revealing that the quality of reporting was largely insufficient for several articles.