Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31773402›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2019

Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis.

Giovanni Adami, Kenneth G Saag, Maria I Danila

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention in real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Giovanni AdamiDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street South, Faculty Office Tower 820D, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Kenneth G SaagDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street South, Faculty Office Tower 820D, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. ksaag@uab.edu.
Maria I DanilaDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street South, Faculty Office Tower 820D, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for designing and conducting a pragmatic clinical trial compared with a classical randomized clinical trial. RECENT

findingsPragmatic clinical trials are a popular study design testing effectiveness of health interventions and are intended to address the limitations associated with traditional explanatory randomized clinical trials testing efficacy of interventions. To date, only few pragmatic clinical trials have been conducted in osteoporosis. Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under routine clinical practice setting and are intended to inform policy makers and clinical decisions. Osteoporosis is a chronic disease well-suited to this particular study design given the existence of a clear and specific natural endpoint, namely fracture occurrence, and the availability of several treatments to prevent fractures.

Indexed as

Pragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicHumansOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesEffectivenessOsteoporosisPragmatic clinical trialsRandomized clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID31773402
OpenAlexW2990070695

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.