ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2015
Orthobiologics in the augmentation of osteoporotic fractures.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing complexity and plateauing outcomes in AO type C distal humerus fractures: a 50-year institutional case series.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
- Osseointegration of osteoporotic bone implants: Role of stem cells, Silica and Strontium - A concise review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2019Review
- Bench-to-bedside strategies for osteoporotic fracture: From osteoimmunology to mechanosensation.Bone research · 2019Review
- Combination therapy with BMP-2 and psoralen enhances fracture healing in ovariectomized mice.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Distal humerus fractures: a review of current therapy concepts.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many orthobiologic adjuvants are available and widely utilized for general skeletal restoration. Their use for the specific task of osteoporotic fracture augmentation is less well recognized. Common conductive materials are reviewed for their value in this patient population including the large group of allograft adjuvants categorically known as the demineralized bone matrices (DBMs). Another large group of alloplastic materials is also examined-the calcium phosphate and sulfate ceramics. Both of these materials, when used for the proper indications, demonstrate efficacy for these patients. The inductive properties of bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs) and platelet concentrates show no clear advantages for this group of patients. Systemic agents including bisphosphonates, receptor activator of nuclear factor κβ ligand (RANKL) inhibitors, and parathyroid hormone augmentation all demonstrate positive effects with this fracture cohort. Newer modalities, such as trace ion bioceramic augmentation, are also reviewed for their positive effects on osteoporotic fracture healing.
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.