SynthesisMedicine2016
Efficacy and Safety of Bisphosphonates for Low Bone Mineral Density After Kidney Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of bisphosphonate and its supplements for bone loss in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC nephrology · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluation of Bone Mineral Density in Lung Transplant Recipients by Chest Computed Tomography.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2024Observational
- Efficacy of iguratimod on mineral and bone disorders after kidney transplantation: a preliminary study.Renal failure · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Osteoporosis Medications for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Risk Factors and Management of Osteoporosis Post-Transplant.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
- Effect of Bisphosphonates on Bone Health in Adult Renal Transplant Patients: Beyond the First Year Posttransplant-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2019Article
- Mineral and Bone Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients.Current osteoporosis reports · 2018Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Different Bisphosphonates for Bone Loss Prevention in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Chinese medical journal · 2018Article
- Risk of hip fracture in patients on dialysis or kidney transplant: a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
- Mineral and Bone Disorders After Kidney Transplantation.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Review
- Osteoporosis in patients with diabetes after kidney transplantation.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) after kidney transplantation, the role of bisphosphonates remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates.We retrieved trials from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception through May 2015. Only randomized controlled trials that compared bisphosphonate-treated and control groups of patients with low bone mineral density after kidney transplantation were included. The primary outcomes were the percent change in BMD, the absolute change in BMD, and the BMD at the end of study at the lumbar spine. The results were expressed as the mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model to pool the outcomes.We included 17 randomized controlled trials with 1067 patients. Only 1 included trial was found to be at low risk of bias. The rest of the included studies were found to have high to uncertain risk of bias. Compared with the control group, those who received bisphosphonates had a significant increase in percent change in BMD (mean difference [MD] = 5.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.22-7.79, P < 0.00001) and absolute change in BMD (MD = 0.05, 95% CI 0.04-0.05, P < 0.00001), but a nonsignificant increase in BMD at the end of the study (MD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.25) at the lumbar spine. Bisphosphonates resulted in a significant improvement in percent change in BMD (MD = 4.95, 95% CI 2.57-7.33, P < 0.0001), but a nonsignificant improvement in absolute change in BMD (MD = 0.03, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.06, P = 0.07) and BMD at the end of the study (MD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02, P = 0.40) at the femoral neck. No significant differences were found in vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures, adverse events, and gastrointestinal adverse events.Bisphosphonates appear to have a beneficial effect on BMD at the lumbar spine and do not significantly decrease fracture events in recipients. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of robustness and the heterogeneity among studies.
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.