ReviewCalcified tissue international2010
Osteoporosis therapies: evidence from health-care databases and observational population studies.
Review in Calcified tissue international, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Persistence with denosumab and persistence with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a retrospective, observational study, and 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 · 2015Pooled it
- Long-term fracture rates seen with continued ibandronate treatment: pooled analysis of DIVA and MOBILE long-term extension studies.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2014Pooled it
- Long-term persistence with denosumab: real-world data from the Austrian Osteoporosis Clinic (AOC). A retrospective data analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Article
- Fracture Rate, Quality of Life and Back Pain in Patients with Osteoporosis Treated with Teriparatide: 24-Month Results from the Extended Forsteo Observational Study (ExFOS).Calcified tissue international · 2016Observational
- Teriparatide use during an economic crisis: baseline data from the Greek cohort of the Extended Forsteo Observational Study (ExFOS).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Observational
- A large prospective European cohort study of patients treated with strontium ranelate and followed up over 3 years.Rheumatology international · 2013Article
- Evidence of sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacy with ibandronate therapy: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a well-recognized disease with severe consequences if left untreated. Randomized controlled trials are the most rigorous method for determining the efficacy and safety of therapies. Nevertheless, randomized controlled trials underrepresent the real-world patient population and are costly in both time and money. Modern technology has enabled researchers to use information gathered from large health-care or medical-claims databases to assess the practical utilization of available therapies in appropriate patients. Observational database studies lack randomization but, if carefully designed and successfully completed, can provide valuable information that complements results obtained from randomized controlled trials and extends our knowledge to real-world clinical patients. Randomized controlled trials comparing fracture outcomes among osteoporosis therapies are difficult to perform. In this regard, large observational database studies could be useful in identifying clinically important differences among therapeutic options. Database studies can also provide important information with regard to osteoporosis prevalence, health economics, and compliance and persistence with treatment. This article describes the strengths and limitations of both randomized controlled trials and observational database studies, discusses considerations for observational study design, and reviews a wealth of information generated by database studies in the field of osteoporosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.