ArticleCancer management and research2018
Efficacy and safety of de-escalation bone- modifying agents for cancer patients with bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) during the treatment of cancer patients].Magyar onkologia · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap - Establishing a dental-oncology service in a cancer centre.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- How we manage medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of denosumab de‑escalation in giant cell tumor of bone.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Article
- Comment on 'Reorganisation of medical oncology departments during the novel coronavirus disease-19 pandemic: A nationwide Italian survey' by Alice Indini et al.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared with application of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) every 4 weeks, it is unclear whether 12-weekly de-escalated therapy can be used as a substitute strategy.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials until November 22, 2017, was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included to assess skeletal-related event (SRE) rates, adverse events, and bone turnover biomarkers, comparing 12-weekly de-escalated treatments with standard 4-weekly dosage regimens. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled in fixed-effect meta-analyses.
resultsA total of eight citations were eligible comprising 2,878 patients: zoledronate (three studies, 2,650 patients), pamidronate (two studies, 68 patients), and denosumab (three studies, 160 patients). Summary RR (0.98; 95% CI 0.87-1.12;
conclusionIn this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, the results "appeared" to show non-inferiority of the 12-weekly treatment. Due to the difference in available data, the results for bisphosphonates are more solid than for the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) antibodies.
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.