Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23201268›Full record

ReviewBone2013

Treatment of osteoporosis in men.

J-M Kaufman, J-Y Reginster, S Boonen, M L Brandi, C Cooper, W Dere, J-P Devogelaer, A Diez-Perez, J A Kanis, E McCloskey and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bone, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. External validation of a novel HR-pQCT based fracture risk assessment tool (μFRAC) in a male cohort: the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Denosumab and clinical outcomes among men with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sex differences in recovery of quality of life 12 months post-fracture in community-dwelling older adults: analyses of the Australian arm of the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Effect of tocotrienol fromDrug design, development and therapy · 2018
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors.

J-M KaufmanDepartment of Endocrinology and Unit for Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, De pintelaan 185, B9000 Gent, Belgium. Jean.Kaufman@ugent.be
J-Y Reginster
S Boonen
M L Brandi
C Cooper
W Dere
J-P Devogelaer
A Diez-Perez
J A Kanis
E McCloskey
B Mitlak
E Orwoll
J D Ringe
G Weryha
R Rizzoli

Funding

Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryAspects of osteoporosis in men, such as screening and identification strategies, definitions of diagnosis and intervention thresholds, and treatment options (both approved and in the pipeline) are discussed.

introductionAwareness of osteoporosis in men is improving, although it remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) workshop was convened to discuss osteoporosis in men and to provide a report by a panel of experts (the authors).

methodsA debate with an expert panel on preselected topics was conducted. RESULTS AND

conclusionsAlthough additional fracture data are needed to endorse the clinical care of osteoporosis in men, consensus views were reached on diagnostic criteria and intervention thresholds. Empirical data in men display similarities with data acquired in women, despite pathophysiological differences, which may not be clinically relevant. Men should receive treatment at a similar 10-year fracture probability as in women. The design of mixed studies may reduce the lag between comparable treatments for osteoporosis in women becoming available in men.

Indexed as

Men's HealthAlgorithmsBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsFractures, BoneHumansMaleOsteoporosisBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID23201268
PMCPMC3662207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.