ReviewClinical cases in mineral and bone metabolism : the official journal of the Italian Society of Osteoporosis, Mineral Metabolism, and Skeletal Diseases
Pitfalls in interpreting interventional studies for osteoporosis.
Review in Clinical cases in mineral and bone metabolism : the official journal of the Italian Society of Osteoporosis, Mineral Metabolism, and Skeletal Diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After adulthood, changes in the skeleton are slow and takes years for accruing or losing any appreciable amount of bone mass. Proper interpretation of studies that evaluate the effect of nutrients (like calcium, vitamin D) and anti-resorptive agents (like bisphosphonates) on bone mass is important so that the true effect of the agent is measured correctly. In this report, we are highlighting two issues of utmost importance for correctly interpreting interventional studies for osteoporosis. One issue is the bone remodelling transient (BRT). It refers to a transient change in bone mineral density (BMD) by any agent that reduces remodeling space temporarily. This change is, however, not sustained for a long period and can be misinterpreted as a true gain in bone mass. The second issue is difference between calcium balance and bone balance. Calcium balance is the difference between the amount of calcium ingested in a day and the amount of calcium lost in that day. Recommendations for dietary calcium intake are based on calcium balance studies that presume calcium balance as an equivalent for bone balance. However, these are two different entities and need to be distinguished. Dietary calcium requirements should be established by bone balance studies using bone densitometry, not by calcium balance 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.