Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 29 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Frontiers in Endocrinology

Clinical guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in China: a systematic review

  • Ting Wei1
  • Lizheng Xu2
  • Shangzhi Xiong3
  • Xinyi Zhang4
  • Maoyi Tian3,4,5,6,7,8
  • Minghui Yang9
  • Yongcheng Wang8
  • Mingsheng Chen10
  • Penelope Abbott11
  • Peter K.K. Wong12,13
  • Gregory S. Kolt1,14
  • Lei Si1,15,16
16 affiliations
  1. 1School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Western Sydney University
  2. 2Healthcare Big Data Research Institute, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University
  3. 3The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales
  4. 4Heilongjiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Trace Elements and Human Health, Harbin Medical University
  5. 5School of Public Health, Harbin Medical University
  6. 6Center for Endemic Disease Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin Medical University
  7. 7National Health Commission Key Laboratory in Etiology and Epidemiology, Harbin Medical University
  8. 8Department of General Practice, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University
  9. 9Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital
  10. 10School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University
  11. 11Department of General Practice, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University
  12. 12Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
  13. 13Department of Rheumatology, Westmead Hospital
  14. 14College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University
  15. 15School of Health Management, Anhui Medical University
  16. 16Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background: The rising prevalence of osteoporosis and related fractures contributes substantially to the clinical and economic burden in China, particularly in the context of an ageing population. In response, various Chinese medical specialties and organisations have developed clinical guidelines for osteoporosis management, specifically tailored to the needs of the Chinese population. This systematic review aimed to compare and evaluate the consistency and divergence among these guidelines.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted for English-language papers. As well, a search of Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang) and Chinese government websites was conducted. The search included documents published up to 13 August 2026. Article screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Management guidelines for primary osteoporosis in Chinese adults were included. Exclusion criteria were guidelines for secondary osteoporosis, guidelines for osteoporotic fractures that did not address osteoporosis management, previous versions of guidelines, and management protocols specific to local hospitals, organisations, communities, or rehabilitation centres. The methodological quality of guidelines was evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II).

Results: Our search yielded 8,100 records, from which 32 guidelines produced by over 60 professional societies across multiple medical specialties were included. While there was consensus on the definition of osteoporosis, diagnostic criteria, prevention strategies, and the inclusion of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches, notable differences emerged in specific treatment recommendations. These discrepancies often reflected differences in the clinical focus of individual disciplines, such as orthopaedics, endocrinology, and geriatrics, particularly regarding diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation, and patient populations. Unlike other international guidelines, fracture liaison services and health economic considerations, including cost-effectiveness analyses, were addressed in only some of the included guidelines.

Conclusion: This systematic review synthesises current osteoporosis management guidelines in China and highlights important inconsistencies in recommendations. The findings underscore the need for high-quality, context-specific research and greater incorporation of health economic evidence to inform the development of more coherent and evidence-based national guidelines.

Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/j83s4/ , identifier j83s4.

Related

  1. Quality of osteoporosis management guidelines produced in China: a systematic review
    Xiaonan Liu, Mengya Ge, Caie Wu +3
    Frontiers in EndocrinologyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossrefEurope PMCPMC
  2. Global perspectives on dietary management of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO): a systematic review of clinical guidelines, consensus statements and expert recommendations
    Magdalena Jodkiewicz, Justyna Malinowska, Karolina Marek-Woźny
    Frontiers in medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Variation in recommendations for management of pediatric fever and neutropenia across databases and languages: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines
    Asher Hancock, Brandon Fickling, Tea Reljic +4
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textInfectious diseaseOncologyPLOSPMC
  4. Methodological quality and clinical applicability of long COVID guidelines and scientific statements: a systematic review using AGREE II and AGREE-REX
    Ricardo Montoya Monsalve, Sofía Campuzano Cortina, Manuela Jiménez Cárdenas
    Frontiers in public healthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEpidemiology & public healthEurope PMC
  5. Osteoporosis and post-fracture management in the primary care setting: a systematic review
    Mystica Jude, Mícheál Ó Breasail, Stefanie Bird +6
    Osteoporosis InternationalPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{wei2026clinical,
  title = {{Clinical guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in China: a systematic review}},
  author = {Ting Wei and Lizheng Xu and Shangzhi Xiong and Xinyi Zhang and Maoyi Tian and Minghui Yang and Yongcheng Wang and Mingsheng Chen and Penelope Abbott and Peter K.K. Wong and Gregory S. Kolt and Lei Si},
  journal = {Frontiers in Endocrinology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3389/fendo.2026.1943964},
  url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2026.1943964/full},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Clinical guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in China: a systematic review
AU  - Ting Wei
AU  - Lizheng Xu
AU  - Shangzhi Xiong
AU  - Xinyi Zhang
AU  - Maoyi Tian
AU  - Minghui Yang
AU  - Yongcheng Wang
AU  - Mingsheng Chen
AU  - Penelope Abbott
AU  - Peter K.K. Wong
AU  - Gregory S. Kolt
AU  - Lei Si
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/15
JO  - Frontiers in Endocrinology
DO  - 10.3389/fendo.2026.1943964
UR  - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2026.1943964/full
AB  - Background: The rising prevalence of osteoporosis and related fractures contributes substantially to the clinical and economic burden in China, particularly in the context of an ageing population. In response, various Chinese medical specialties and organisations have developed clinical guidelines for osteoporosis management, specifically tailored to the needs of the Chinese population. This systematic review aimed to compare and evaluate the consistency and divergence among these guidelines.  Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted for English-language papers. As well, a search of Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang) and Chinese government websites was conducted. The search included documents published up to 13 August 2026. Article screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Management guidelines for primary osteoporosis in Chinese adults were included. Exclusion criteria were guidelines for secondary osteoporosis, guidelines for osteoporotic fractures that did not address osteoporosis management, previous versions of guidelines, and management protocols specific to local hospitals, organisations, communities, or rehabilitation centres. The methodological quality of guidelines was evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II).  Results: Our search yielded 8,100 records, from which 32 guidelines produced by over 60 professional societies across multiple medical specialties were included. While there was consensus on the definition of osteoporosis, diagnostic criteria, prevention strategies, and the inclusion of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches, notable differences emerged in specific treatment recommendations. These discrepancies often reflected differences in the clinical focus of individual disciplines, such as orthopaedics, endocrinology, and geriatrics, particularly regarding diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation, and patient populations. Unlike other international guidelines, fracture liaison services and health economic considerations, including cost-effectiveness analyses, were addressed in only some of the included guidelines.  Conclusion: This systematic review synthesises current osteoporosis management guidelines in China and highlights important inconsistencies in recommendations. The findings underscore the need for high-quality, context-specific research and greater incorporation of health economic evidence to inform the development of more coherent and evidence-based national guidelines.  Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/j83s4/ , identifier j83s4.
SN  - 1664-2392
ER  -