Is De-escalated Bisphosphonates Therapy a Suitable Alternative to Standard Dosing in Malignant Tumor Patients With Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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. Healthcare resource utilization and associated cost of patients with bone metastases from solid tumors who are naïve to bone-targeting agents: a comparative analysis of patients with and without skeletal-related events.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
   Trial
2. Unusual Metastasis From Breast Cancer: Case Report.Cureus · 2021
   Article
3. Updates in Management of Bone Metastatic Disease in Primary Solid Tumors with Systemic Therapies.Current osteoporosis reports · 2021
   Review
4. Review of Bone Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cureus · 2021
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as