Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24511313›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of endocrinology2014

Alendronate versus Raloxifene for Postmenopausal Women: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Head-to-Head Randomized Controlled Trials.

Tiao Lin, Shi-Gui Yan, Xun-Zi Cai, Zhi-Min Ying, Fu-Zhen Yuan, Xi Zuo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of endocrinology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Comparison of Osteoporosis Pharmacotherapy Fracture Rates: Analysis of a MarketScanInternational journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis: beyond bisphosphonates.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2015
    Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiao LinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19014, USA.
Shi-Gui YanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China.
Xun-Zi CaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China.
Zhi-Min YingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China.
Fu-Zhen YuanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China.
Xi ZuoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNDrexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose. The aim of this study was to directly compare the efficacy and the safety of the two agents for postmenopausal women. Methods/Principal Findings. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles that met our predefined inclusion criteria. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 4054 women were identified and included. Although Aln was more effective than Rlx in increasing bone mineral density (BMD), no statistical differences were observed in reducing the risk of neither vertebral fractures (P = 0.45) nor nonvertebral fractures (P = 0.87) up to two-year followup. Aln reduced the risk of vasomotor (P = 0.006) but increased the risk of diarrhea compared to Rlx (P = 0.01). Our subgroup analysis further indicated the difference between Aln and Rlx in fracture risk and was not materially altered by the administration pattern, the age. The weekly strategy of Aln would further reduce the upper gastrointestinal (GI) disorders and might gain more bone mass increment at lumbar spine compared to its daily treatment. Conclusion. There was no evidence of difference of fracture risk reduction between Aln and Rlx. In addition, age did not obviously influence their relative antifracture efficacy. For Aln the weekly strategy would further reduce the upper GI disorders and gain more bone mass increment compared to the daily treatment. During clinical decision making, the patients' adherence and the related side-effects associated with both drugs should also be taken into account.

Identifiers

PMID24511313
PMCPMC3912893
OpenAlexW2003158152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.