ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2009
Fracture prevention in men.
Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustained and reversible effects of a dietary phosphate intake on bone and mineral metabolism during aging.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Silencing of prolyl endopeptidase protects against bone loss and enhances regeneration via bone anabolic and anti-catabolic effects.Cell death discovery · 2025Article
- Hip fracture incidence 2003-2013 and projected cases until 2050 in Austria: a population-based study.International journal of public health · 2016Article
- Protective effects of dietary carotenoids on risk of hip fracture in men: the Singapore Chinese Health Study.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lifetime risk of experiencing a fracture in 50-year-old men is lower (20%) than the risk in women (50%). Consequently, much less research has been carried out on osteoporosis and fracture risk in men. Differences in the risk and incidence of fractures between men and women are related to differences in bone-related and fall-related factors between the sexes. During the past decade, progress has been achieved in case finding and fracture prevention in men. Epidemiology studies have better specified the prevalence and incidence of fractures, and insight into the pathophysiology of osteoporosis and fractures in men has progressed considerably. Case finding for men and women at the highest risk of fracture is now possible using the FRAX algorithm, which includes clinical risk factors, with and without bone mineral density, and allows calculation of an individual's 10-year fracture risk. Although strategies to prevent fractures are much less common in men than in women, several treatment options are now available for this purpose. Bisphosphonates, in particular, consistently demonstrate a positive effect on bone mineral density, and some data also indicate decreased rates of vertebral fractures. For men with severe osteoporosis, treatment with the anabolic agent teriparatide might be an effective option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19636335What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.