ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Zoledronic Acid Versus Denosumab for Prevention of Spinal Cord Compression in Advanced Cancers With Spine Metastasis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality Of Life and Functional Outcomes in Patients with Spinal Metastatic Bone Disease: A Retrospective Observational Study.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Article
- Treatment of myeloma bone disease: When, how often, and for how long?Journal of bone oncology · 2025Review
- Holistic Approach to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Tumor Metastases to the Spine.Cancers · 2022Review
- Spinal metastasis: narrative reviews of the current evidence and treatment modalities.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Review
- Multimodal Imaging-Based Potential Visualization of the Tumor Microenvironment in Bone Metastasis.Cells · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
objectivesThe aim was to analyze the efficacy of zoledronic acid (ZA) versus denosumab in the prevention of spinal cord compression in patients with spine metastases from advanced cancers, by evaluating all available RCTs on this subject.
methodsA systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) was performed to identify all published RCTs comparing ZA with denosumab in prevention of spinal cord compressions in spine metastases. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed. The primary outcomes evaluated were spinal cord compression.
resultsThree RCTs (5274 patients) were included. Denosumab was not significantly superior to ZA in reducing the likelihood of spinal cord compression, when all tumor types were combined (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.66, 1.28],
conclusionDenosumab does not significantly reduce the likelihood of spinal cord compressions in comparison to ZA in patients with spine metastases. When spinal cord compressions were grouped by tumor origin (endodermal or mesodermal), there remained no significant difference between denosumab and ZA. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these treatment regimens.
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.