Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35430576›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022

Pharmacological Therapies for Osteoporosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Jiping Shen, Zheng Ke, Shuangshuang Dong, Minzhi Lv, Ying Yuan, Le Song, Kefen Wu, Kan Xu, Yu Hu

Open access · greenAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiping ShenDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Zheng KeChugai Pharma China Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China (mainland).
Shuangshuang DongChugai Pharma China Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China (mainland).
Minzhi LvDepartment of Biostatistics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Ying YuanDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Le SongDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Kefen WuDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).ORCID 0000-0002-2702-2977
Kan XuDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Yu HuDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Fudan University · CNZhongshan Hospital · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible RCTs from their inception up to January 2021. The primary endpoints were all fractures, vertebral fractures, and non-vertebral fractures, while the secondary endpoints were fractures at hip or peripheral locations, bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites, and potential adverse events. RESULTS We included 79 RCTs reporting a total of 108 797 individuals in the final quantitative analysis. The results of network analysis indicated that romosozumab (92.1%) was the most effective in reducing the risk for all fractures, with the best therapeutic effects on vertebral fracture (97.2%) and non-vertebral fracture (88.0%). Romosozumab (92.5%) provided better therapeutic effects for the reduction of hip fracture. The best treatment agents for improving whole-body BMD (100.0%), spine BMD (95.7%), hip BMD (92.4%), femoral neck BMD (86.7%), and trochanter BMD (95.5%) were alendronate, strontium ranelate, ibandronate, risedronate, and ibandronate, respectively. Finally, the use of bazedoxifene was associated with the highest incidence of any upper-gastrointestinal event, nasopharyngitis, and back pain, while risedronate was associated with higher incidence of abdominal pain and dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS This study found that romosozumab yielded the best effects for preventing fracture risk, while abaloparatide was the most effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsHip FracturesOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalSpinal FracturesBone DensityFemaleHumansIbandronic AcidRisedronic AcidBone Density Conservation AgentsIbandronic AcidRisedronic Acid

Identifiers

PMID35430576
PMCPMC9022483
OpenAlexW4214663837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.