ArticleJournal of osteoporosis2011
The evidence for efficacy of osteoporosis treatment in men with primary osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of antiresorptive and anabolic treatment in men.
Article in Journal of osteoporosis, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of antiresorptive and anabolic therapies for male osteoporosis: an updated Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Does Routine Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Lower the Risk of Fractures in Male Subjects? An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017Pooled it
- Various aspects of sex and gender bias in biomedical research.Physiological research · 2020Review
- Article
- The clinical epidemiology of male osteoporosis: a review of the recent literature.Clinical epidemiology · 2015Review
- Modelling the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis: issues to consider.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Review
- Causes, consequences, and treatment of osteoporosis in men.Drug design, development and therapy · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose. Fragility fractures in men constitute a major worldwide public health problem with a life-time risk of 13%. It cannot be directly inferred that antiosteoporotic drugs effective in women have the same effect in men. Our aim was to appraise the existing evidence for efficacy of osteoporosis treatment in men. Methods. This study was a systematic review of the published literature on the clinical efficacy of medical osteoporosis therapy in the reduction of fracture risk in men (age > 50 years). Studies included were randomised, placebo-controlled trials of men. Results. Five BMD studies of antiresorptive treatment were included. All studies showed an increase in BMD, but there was only a nonsignificant trend in the reduction of clinical fractures. Three BMD studies of anabolic treatment with teriparatide were also included. These showed a significant mean increase in spine BMD and for vertebral fractures a non-significant trend towards a reduction was seen. Conclusion. The evidence of medical osteoporosis treatment in men is scant and inconclusive due to the lack of prospective RCT studies with fracture prevention as primary end point. So far, all evidence is based on BMD increases in small RCT studies showing BMD increases comparable to those reported in postmenopausal women.
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.