Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158101›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021

Comparison of denosumab and zoledronic acid for the treatment of solid tumors and multiple myeloma with bone metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

Lianghai Jiang, Xianghua Cui, Haoning Ma, Xiangsheng Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. [Expert consensus on perioperative management of tooth extraction in patients receiving denosumab therapy].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lianghai JiangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong, China.
Xianghua CuiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong, China.
Haoning MaDepartment of Spinal Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China.
Xiangsheng TangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. qdspinemd@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4634-1014
China-Japan Friendship Hospital · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety between denosumab and zoledronic acid for advanced cancer with bone metastasis.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials up to December 2020 that compared denosumab and zoledronic acid in the treatment of advanced cancer with bone metastasis. The following clinical outcomes were extracted for analysis: time to first skeletal-related event, time to first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events, overall survival, and disease progression. Safety outcomes including incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, acute-phase reactions, renal toxicity, osteonecrosis of the jaw, and hypocalcemia were also extracted.

resultsFour randomized controlled trials involving 7201 patients were included. The overall analysis showed that denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.93; P < 0.01) and time to first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events (risk ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.93; P < 0.01). Denosumab was associated with lower incidence of renal toxicity (risk ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.87; P < 0.01) and acute phase reaction (risk ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.56; P < 0.01), but higher incidence of hypocalcemia (risk ratio 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.33-2.38; P < 0.01) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (risk ratio 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.95; P = 0.04). No significant differences were found in overall survival, time to disease progression, or incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between denosumab and zoledronic acid.

conclusionsCompared with zoledronic acid, denosumab is associated with delayed first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events, lower incidence of renal toxicity, and acute phase reaction, but higher incidence of hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Hence, denosumab seems to be a promising choice for advanced cancer with bone metastasis. Nonetheless, more randomized controlled trials are needed for further evaluation.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsBone NeoplasmsDenosumabHumansMultiple MyelomaPlasmacytomaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeZoledronic AcidBone Density Conservation AgentsDenosumabZoledronic AcidBone metastasisDenosumabMeta-analysisZoledronic acid

Identifiers

PMID34158101
PMCPMC8218501
OpenAlexW3173723023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.