Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635520›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2021

Anabolic Agents for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: How Do You Choose?

Felicia Cosman, David W Dempster

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sequential and Long-term Therapy for Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2025
    Review
  9. Responders and non-responders to romosozumab treatment.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Osteoporosis: Spotlight on current approaches to pharmacological treatment.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felicia CosmanDepartment of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA. felcosman@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4554-6616
David W DempsterDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA.
Columbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThere are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings. RECENT

findingsStudies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.

Indexed as

Anabolic AgentsBone DensityFemaleHumansOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalOsteoporotic FracturesAnabolic AgentsAbaloparatideAnabolicPostmenopausal osteoporosisRomosozumabTeriparatideTreatment sequence

Identifiers

PMID33635520
OpenAlexW3133043825

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.