Histomorphometric interpretation of bone biopsies for the evaluation of osteoporosis treatment.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Comparative bone histomorphometry effects of combined denosumab and teriparatide vs monotherapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026
   Trial
2. Bone quality changes associated with aging and disease: a review.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2017
   Review
3. Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: a 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2013
   Review

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract