ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2020
The Value of a Patient-Level Modeling Approach and Need for Better Reporting in Economic Evaluations of Osteoporosis.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening using artificial-intelligence assisted chest radiographs in Japan.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening using chest radiographs with deep learning in Germany.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the United States.JBMR plus · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
disclosuresNo funding was involved in the writing of this letter. Outside of the submitted work, Hiligsmann has received research grants through institution from Amgen, Radius Health, UCB, and Teva/Theramex. Reginster has received research grants and/or consulting fees from Servier, Novartis, Negma, Lilly, Wyeth, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merckle, Nycomed-Takeda, NPS, IBSA Genevrier, Theramex, UCB, Asahi Kasei, Endocyte, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Rottapharm, Teijin, Teva, Analis, NovoNordisk, Ebewee Pharma, Zodiac, Danone, Will Pharma, Meda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Organon, Therabel, Boehringer, Chiltern, and Galapagos. Silverman has received grant support from Amgen, Radius, and Lilly; consulting fees from Amgen and Radius; has served on scientific advisory boards for Lilly and Amgen; and has served on speakers bureaus for Amgen, Lilly, and Radius.
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.