It is odd that the title of this article emphasizes the application of epidemiology to change health policy, as it is not clear from the abstract whether it is actually an epidemiological study (i.e. were the 291 fracture cases and 823 controls drawn from a population, or hospital data?), and the change recommended is that high-risk individuals defined by this study should be considered for primary fracture prevention therapy, whereas health policy would be something like requiring insurers to cover these procedures.
Although this abstract is clearly and tightly written, it does not provide any insight into the potential significance of this case, which would be helpful for the non-ophtamologist.
I noticed this abstract: https://www.peeref.com/works/3601866; and I have to wonder why the journal requests a declaration of competing interest if they are going to publish the study without it.
Not a great abstract--first, why would a journal published a study in which "The author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest."? Require it! Further, the grammar and syntax are poor, making the abstract difficult to follow.
This study used a widely diverse group of secondary data sets: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (UK); Singapore Cohort Study of Risk Factors for Myopia; Raine Eye Health Study (Australia; and Israeli Defense Force Pre-recruitment Candidates.
论文