Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30755735›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2019

Antiresorptive and anabolic agents in the prevention and reversal of bone fragility.

Ego Seeman, T J Martin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effectiveness and safety of bone protective interventions to mitigate bone loss and skeletal fractures experienced by patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. In vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone rigidity enhances fracture discrimination beyond DXA in postmenopausal women.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Rebalancing bone remodelling in osteoporosis.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Cross-talks between osteoporosis and gut microbiome.World journal of orthopedics · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ego SeemanDepartments of Endocrinology and Medicine, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. egos@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9692-048X
T J MartinDepartment of Medicine and St Vincent's Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone volume, microstructure and its material composition are maintained by bone remodelling, a cellular activity carried out by bone multicellular units (BMUs). BMUs are focally transient teams of osteoclasts and osteoblasts that respectively resorb a volume of old bone and then deposit an equal volume of new bone at the same location. Around the time of menopause, bone remodelling becomes unbalanced and rapid, and an increased number of BMUs deposit less bone than they resorb, resulting in bone loss, a reduction in bone volume and microstructural deterioration. Cortices become porous and thin, and trabeculae become thin, perforated and disconnected, causing bone fragility. Antiresorptive agents reduce fracture risk by reducing the rate of bone remodelling so that fewer BMUs are available to remodel bone. Bone fragility is not abolished by these drugs because existing microstructural deterioration is not reversed, unsuppressed remodelling continues producing microstructural deterioration and unremodelled bone that becomes more mineralized can become brittle. Anabolic agents reduce fracture risk by stimulating new bone formation, which partly restores bone volume and microstructure. To guide fracture prevention, this Review provides an overview of the structural basis of bone fragility, the mechanisms of remodelling and how anabolic and antiresorptive agents target remodelling defects.

Indexed as

Anabolic AgentsAnimalsBone Demineralization, PathologicBone Density Conservation AgentsBone RemodelingBone ResorptionHumansAnabolic AgentsBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID30755735
OpenAlexW2913968625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.