Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11034769›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Fluoride for treating postmenopausal osteoporosis.

D Haguenauer, V Welch, B Shea, P Tugwell, G Wells

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Warm needle acupuncture in primary osteoporosis management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Chinese herbal medicines for treating osteoporosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  3. Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Effects of treatment with fluoride on bone mineral density and fracture risk--a meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2008
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation.Preventive nutrition and food science · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Tools in the assessment of sarcopenia.Calcified tissue international · 2013
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Osteoporosis in the aging male: treatment options.Clinical interventions in aging · 2007
    Review
  17. Why do doctors use treatments that do not work?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

D HaguenauerClinical Epidemiologist, 135 Riverdale Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S-1R1. HaguenauerLTD@home.com
V Welch
B Shea
P Tugwell
G Wells
University of Ottawa · CAHôpital Sainte-Périne · FROttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the efficacy of fluoride therapy on bone loss, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures and side effects in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry up to December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers selected RCTs which met predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data using predetermined forms and assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated scale. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks (RR) were calculated and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMD) of percentage change from baseline were calculated. Where heterogeneity existed (determined by a chi-square test) a random effects model was used. MAIN

resultsEleven studies (1429 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was found to be higher in the treatment group than in the control group with a WMD 8.1% (95%CI: 7.15,9.09) after two years of treatment and 16.1%(95%CI: 14.65,17.5) after four years. The RR for new vertebral fractures was not significant at two years [0.87 (95%CI: 0.51,1.46)] or at four years [0.9(95%CI: 0.71,1.14)]. The RR for new non-vertebral fractures was not significant at two years 1.2(95%CI: 0.68,2.1) but was increased at four years in the treated group 1.85(95%CI: 1.36,2.5), especially if used at high doses and in a non slow release form. The RR for gastrointestinal side effects was not significant at two years 2.18(95%CI: 0.86,1.21) but was increased at four years in the treated group 2.18(95%CI: 1.69,4.57) especially if fluoride was used at high doses and in a non slow release form. The number of withdrawals and dropouts was not different between treated and control groups at two and four years. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAlthough fluoride has an ability to increase BMD at lumbar spine, it does not result in a reduction of vertebral fractures. In increasing the dose of fluoride, one increases the risk of non-vertebral fracture and gastrointestinal side effects without any effect on the vertebral fracture rate.

Indexed as

Bone DensityFemaleFluoridesFractures, BoneHumansOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalPhosphatesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSodium FluorideFluoridesfluorophosphatePhosphatesSodium Fluoride

Identifiers

PMID11034769
PMCPMC8453489
OpenAlexW1497018112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.