ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2018
Efficacy, safety, and compliance of ibandronate treatment for 3 years in postmenopausal Japanese women with primary osteoporosis.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for poor response to denosumab treatment in Japanese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2022Observational
- Efficacy and Safety of Oral Ibandronate versus Intravenous Zoledronic Acid on Bone Metabolism and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Japanese Women with Osteoporosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, safety, and adherence of ibandronate (IBN) treatment with or without vitamin D supplementation for 3 years in Japanese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
methodsThis prospective investigation included 27 patients treated with IBN alone (monotherapy group) and 29 patients receiving IBN and alfacalcidol (ALF) (combination group). Bone metabolism and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured before and at 18, 24, 30, and 36 months of therapy. Treatment discontinuation and fracture occurrence were assessed as well.
resultsLumbar 1-4 BMD (L-BMD) was significantly increased in the monotherapy and combination groups by 3.9% and 7.2%, respectively, at 36 months, with significant gains in total hip BMD (H-BMD) of 3.7% and 4.9%, respectively. There were significant differences in L-BMD improvement between the groups at 18, 24, and 30 months (P < 0.05) and at 36 months (P < 0.01). Compared with pretreatment levels, the percentage changes of L-BMD and H-BMD were significant at all time points in the combination group and at all points apart from L-BMD at 36 months in the monotherapy group. In the monotherapy group, 14 patients dropped out during 3 years and 2 vertebral fractures occurred during the first year. In the combination group, 16 cases dropped out during 3 years and 1 nonvertebral fracture was noted during the first year.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that combination therapy of IBN and vitamin D is superior to monotherapy with regard to L-BMD improvements for 3 years, with both groups showing comparable safety and adherence to treatment.
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.