Trial reportMedicine2019
A prospective comparative study of intravenous alendronate and ibandronate for the treatment of osteoporosis.
Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates in pediatric glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis and pharmacovigilance study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Oral bisphosphonates: Adverse effects on the oral mucosa not related to the jaw bones. A scoping review.Gerodontology · 2022Article
- Association between NF-Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleFew comparative studies have evaluated the differences between intravenous alendronate (ALN) and ibandronate (IBN) in patients with osteoporosis. This study was to compare the effects of these 2 drugs on bone mineral density (BMD), bone metabolic markers, and adverse events in patients with osteoporosis. PATIENT CONCERNS: Seventy-eight subjects were assigned to the ALN group and 66 to the IBN group. DIAGNOSES: The diagnosis of osteoporosis was based on BMD values of the femoral neck or lumbar spine less than -2.5 SD below the reference values.
interventionsThis study was designed as a 52-weeks, prospective, non-randomized study involving a parallel-group comparison between intravenous ALN and intravenous IBN in elderly women with osteoporosis. OUTCOMES: The non-switched-IBN subgroup showed significant decrease in serum collagen type I cross-linked telopeptide (NTX) at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline, and the decrease in NTX were significantly greater in the non-switched-IBN subgroup than in the non-swithed-ALN subgroup. BMD in the lumbar spine in the non-switched-IBN subgroup showed a significant increase at 12 months and the increase in BMD were significantly larger than in the non-switched-ALN subgroup. LESSONS: Intravenou IBN might result in a significantly greater increase of BMD and decrease in NTX, but it had a higher incidence of adverse drug reactions than ALN.
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.