Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27191848›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Recent Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis: A Firm Foundation or Falling Short?

Karen Barnard, Wanda C Lakey, Bryan C Batch, Karen Chiswell, Asba Tasneem, Jennifer B Green

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of odanacatib in the treatment of men with osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Trial
  3. Effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention in real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen BarnardDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7683-7665
Wanda C LakeyDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Bryan C BatchDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Karen ChiswellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Asba TasneemOffice of Research Informatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Jennifer B GreenDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Duke University · US

Funding

FDA HHS R18 FD005292FDA HHS U19 FD003800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global burden of osteoporotic fractures is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. We examined the ClinicalTrials.gov database to determine whether recently registered clinical trials addressed prevention and treatment in those at high risk for fracture. A dataset of 96,346 trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov was downloaded on September 27, 2010. At the time of the dataset download, 40,970 interventional trials had been registered since October 1, 2007. The osteoporosis subset comprised 239 interventional trials (0.6%). Those trials evaluating orthopedic procedures were excluded. The primary purpose was treatment in 67.0%, prevention in 20.1%, supportive care in 5.8%, diagnostic in 2.2%, basic science in 3.1%, health services research in 0.9%, and screening in 0.9%. The majority of studies (61.1%) included drug-related interventions. Most trials (56.9%) enrolled only women, 38.9% of trials were open to both men and women, and 4.2% enrolled only men. Roughly one fifth (19.7%) of trials excluded research participants older than 65 years, and 33.5% of trials excluded those older than 75 years. The funding sources were industry in 51.0%, the National Institutes of Health in 6.3%, and other in 42.7%. We found that most osteoporosis-related trials registered from October 2007 through September 2010 examined the efficacy and safety of drug treatment, and fewer trials examined prevention and non-drug interventions. Trials of interventions that are not required to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov may be underrepresented. Few trials are specifically studying osteoporosis in men and older adults. Recently registered osteoporosis trials may not sufficiently address fracture prevention.

Indexed as

AgedBiasBone Density Conservation AgentsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleOrthopedic ProceduresOsteoporosisPatient SelectionBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID27191848
PMCPMC4871563
OpenAlexW2398651674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.