ArticleChinese medical journal2018
Efficacy and Safety of Different Bisphosphonates for Bone Loss Prevention in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-osteoporotic therapies for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMineral and bone disorder is one of the severe complications in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Previous studies showed that bisphosphonates had favorable effects on bone mineral density (BMD). We sought to compare different bisphosphonate regimens and rank their strategies.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to April 01, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bisphosphonate treatments in adult KTRs. The primary outcome was BMD change. We executed the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to evaluate the risk of bias. We performed pairwise meta-analyses using random effects models and network meta-analysis (NMA) using Bayesian models and assessed the quality of evidence.
resultsA total of 21 RCTs (1332 participants) comparing 6 bisphosphonate regimens were included. All bisphosphonates showed a significantly increased percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine compared to calcium except clodronate. Pamidronate with calcium and Vitamin D analogs showed improved BMD in comparison to clodronate with calcium (mean difference [MD], 9.84; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.06-19.70). The combination of calcium and Vitamin D analogs had a significantly lower influence than adding either pamidronate or alendronate (MD, 6.34; 95% CrI, 2.59-11.01 and MD, 6.16; 95% CrI, 0.54-13.24, respectively). In terms of percentage BMD change at the femoral neck, both pamidronate and ibandronate combined with calcium demonstrated a remarkable gain compared with calcium (MD, 7.02; 95% CrI, 0.30-13.29 and MD, 7.30; 95% CrI, 0.32-14.22, respectively). The combination of ibandronate with calcium displayed a significant increase in absolute BMD compared to any other treatments and was ranked best.
conclusionsOur NMA suggested that new-generation bisphosphonates such as ibandronate were more favorable in KTRs to improve BMD. However, the conclusion should be treated with caution due to indirect comparisons.
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.