ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2017
Comparison of effectiveness and safety of ibandronate and minodronate combined with eldecalcitol in primary osteoporosis of women: A 1-year follow-up study.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Influence on the bone mineral density and bone metabolism marker after the interruption and reinitiation of monthly minodronate therapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis is an open labeled and retrospective cohort study which compared the effectiveness and safety of ibandronate (IBN) and minodronate (MIN) combined with eldecalcitol (ELD) in primary osteoporosis of women.
methodsOne hundred and forty-eight primary osteoporotic women were classified into 3 groups; 1) intravenous IBN combined with oral ELD (IBN + ELD group, N = 50; 81.8 ± 6.2 years), 2) oral MIN combined with oral ELD (MIN + ELD group, N = 50; 77.2 ± 6.9 years) and 3) oral ELD alone (ELD group, N = 48; 75.0 ± 8.3 years). For statistical analysis, lumbar spine bone mineral density (L-BMD), hip total bone mineral density (H-BMD), serum corrected calcium (Ca), serum inorganic phosphorus (iP), intact-parathyroid hormone (PTH), tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), serum homocysteine (Hcy), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine calcium / creatinine (Ca/Cr) ratio were measured until 12 months after the start of therapy.
resultsL-BMD values increased significantly in both IBN + ELD and MIN + ELD group, however, H-BMD increased significantly in the IBN + ELD group only. TRACP-5b values decreased rapidly during the first 6 months in both IBN + ELD and MIN + ELD group. However, BAP value in the IBN + ELD group decreased more gradually compared with that in the MIN + ELD group. Both serum Ca value and urine Ca/Cr ratio tended to increase, and the eGFR value decreased significantly in each group.
conclusionsIBN combined with ELD administration can act more effectively to increase BMD compared with MIN combined with ELD administration. Differences of decreasing rate in TRACP-5b and BAP value may lead to differences of increased rate of BMD in the IBN + ELD and MIN + ELD group. Because many cases of osteoporosis are elderly persons associated with chronic kidney disease, monitoring of kidney function and concentration of Ca in blood and urine is essential.
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.