ArticlePloS one2021
Current practice patterns of osteoporosis treatment in cancer patients and effects of therapeutic interventions in a tertiary center.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A real-world study of treatment patterns among patients with osteoporotic fracture: analysis of a Japanese hospital database.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer and osteoporosis have high incidence rates in older populations. However, the treatment of osteoporosis among cancer patients has not been adequately described. Our purpose was to clarify the current practice patterns of osteoporosis treatment among cancer patients in an academic cancer center, and to analyze the efficacy of treatment interventions. Patient records from April 2009 to March 2018 were retrospectively reviewed, and the study included a total of 316 cancer patients with osteoporosis. After patients' data extraction, the patients were divided into two groups, with (n = 144) or without treatment (n = 172), and compared the outcomes of these groups to evaluate the medication effect. The primary outcome was new radiographic fragility fractures during the study period. The related factors associated with fracture injuries and the rate of adverse events, such as osteonecrosis in the jaw and atypical femoral fractures, were analyzed. The rate of treatment intervention was 45.6% among the patient groups. Among patients in the study group, breast cancer patients (n = 107) were mostly treated (n = 79, 73.8%) with oral bisphosphonate. A significant difference in new fracture rate was observed between the two groups (treatment group, 30.6%; non-treatment group, 54.7%), and the risk of fracture was 42% lower in the treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.86; p<0.05). Previous chemotherapy, steroid use, and older age were significantly associated with increased rate of new fragility fractures. The adverse event rate was 3.5% (presented in five cases). Older cancer patients who receive chemotherapy or steroids are strongly recommended undergo bone quality assessment and appropriate osteoporosis treatment to improve their prognosis.
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.