ArticleJournal of endocrinological investigation2014
Anti-reabsorptive agents in women with osteoporosis: determining statistical equivalence according to evidence-based methods.
Article in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of odanacatib in the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in improving bone strength in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review.Singapore medical journal · 2019Pooled it
- Osteoporosis drugs for prevention of clinical fracture in white postmenopausal women: a network meta-analysis of survival data.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020Article
- Review
- Gastrointestinal and renal side effects of bisphosphonates: differentiating between no proof of difference and proof of no difference.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2015Article
- Biological drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by the subcutaneous route: interpreting efficacy data to assess statistical equivalence.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the present study, we undertook an equivalence analysis on the effectiveness of the main anti-reabsorptive agents indicated for women with osteoporosis.
methodsOur methodology was a combination of meta-analysis (both pair-wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis) and equivalence testing. The end-point was the incidence on new vertebral fractures. The anti-reabsorptive agents examined included alendronate, zoledronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and denosumab.
resultsOur analysis involved nine randomized trials. Ten head-to-head indirect comparisons were examined through network meta-analysis and the respective values of RR were estimated. The 95 % confidence intervals for RR remained within the interval of a relative ±40 % variation for all comparisons that involved alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and denosumab. In contrast, the comparisons involving zoledronate satisfied a post hoc margin up to ±67 %.
conclusionOur results confirm that most of these anti-reabsorptive drugs (namely, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and denosumab) are equivalent according to reasonable equivalence margins.
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.