ArticleSaudi medical journal2015
Favorable therapeutic response of osteoporosis patients to treatment with intravenous zoledronate compared with oral alendronate.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Zoledronic Acid on Serum Biomarkers among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Modic Changes in Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of orally-administered alendronate compared with intravenously-administered zoledronate.
methodsThis prospective study was carried out at Barts Health HNS Trust between April 2010 and March 2012. This study compares changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in 234 patients treated with 2 bisphosphonates: alendronate taken orally, and zoledronate administered intravenously. One hundred and eighteen patients received alendronate at 70 mg/week, while 116 patients received zoledronate once annually. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD of the left hip and anterior-posterior spine (lumbar L1-L4) skeletal sites at baseline, and at one-, and 2-years post-treatment.
resultsThis study provides evidence that lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.6% in patients receiving alendronate, and 5.7% in patients receiving zoledronate after 2 years compared with baseline values (p=0.0001 for both). Total hip BMD decreased in patients treated with alendronate by 0.4% but increased in patients receiving zoledronate by 0.8% (p=0.0001).
conclusionThis study provides evidence that zoledronate is more effective than alendronate in treating patients with osteoporosis and with no gastrointestinal (GI) serious side effects. Furthermore, zoledronate appears to have the added advantage of a better safety profile in patients suffering from GI intolerance of oral bisphosphonates.
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.