Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28173850›Full record

ReviewDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2017

New horizons in treatment of osteoporosis.

Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy, Pooneh Salari, Patricia Khashayar, Bagher Larijani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Antiresorptive therapies in osteoporosis].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Ozra Tabatabaei-MalazyDiabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Pooneh SalariMedical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Patricia KhashayarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Bagher LarijaniEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Fifth floor, Dr.Shariati Hospital, North Kargar Ave, Tehran, 14114, Iran. Larijanib@tums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevalence of osteoporosis is increasing both in developed and developing countries. Due to rapid growth in the burden and cost of osteoporosis, worldwide, it seems reasonable to focus on the reduction of fractures as the main goal of treatment. Although, efficient pharmacological agents are available for the treatment of osteoporosis, there still remains a need to more specific drugs with less adverse effects. MAIN BODY: This review article provides a brief update on the pathogenesis, presenting current pharmacological products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Europe, and also newer therapeutic agents to treat osteoporosis according to the clinical trial data available at PubMed, UpToDate, International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), and clinical practice guidelines. As well, the effect of combination therapy and recommendations for future research will be further discussed. SHORT

conclusionThe use of current antiresorptive and anabolic agents alone or in combinations for the treatment of osteoporosis entails several limitations. Mainly, their efficacy on non-vertebral fracture reduction is lower than that observed on vertebral fracture. In addition, they have potential adverse events on long time usage. Development of newer agents such as cathepsin k inhibitor and strontium ranelate not only have increased the available options for treating osteoporosis, but also have opened doors of opportunity to improvements in the effective treatment. However, the high cost of new agents have restricted their usage in selective patients who are at high risk of fracture or whom failed response to first line treatment options. Thus, personalized medicine should be considered for future evaluation of genetic risk score and also for environmental exposure assessment. In addition to permanent attention to early diagnosis of osteoporosis and understanding of the pathophysiology of osteoporosis for novel approach in drug discovery, there seems a need to more well-designed clinical trials with larger sample sizes and longer duration on current as well as on newer agents. Also, continuous research on plant-derived components as the source of discovering new agents, and conducting more clinical trials with combination of two or more synthetic drugs, plants, or drug-plant for the treatment of osteoporosis are recommended. Summary of treatment modalities for osteoporosis.

Indexed as

Anabolic AgentsAnimalsBone Density Conservation AgentsCalciumDietary SupplementsExerciseHumansLife StyleOsteoporosisVitamin DAnabolic AgentsBone Density Conservation AgentsCalciumVitamin DAnabolic agentsAntiresorptiveFracturesOsteoporosisPersonalized medicinePlantsTreatment

Identifiers

PMID28173850
PMCPMC5297185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.