ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2022
Risk of venous thromboembolism among women receiving ospemifene: a comparative observational study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Apelin promotes RANKL‑mediated osteoclastogenesis by activating MAPK and NF‑κB pathways.Molecular medicine reports · 2026Article
- Pharmacotherapeutic considerations of selective estrogen receptor modulators for vascular protection.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The primary aim of this study was to compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women initiating ospemifene vs other selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) therapies for estrogen-deficiency conditions or breast cancer prevention, and vs women with untreated vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA). The secondary objective examined numerous additional safety outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the IBM Watson MarketScan claims database. Women receiving ospemifene, another SERM, or with a new diagnosis of VVA with no treatment from 1 May 2013 to 2 October 2018 were followed through the claims for incident adverse outcomes. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of VTE following cohort entry; secondary outcomes included cerebrovascular events and other adverse events potentially associated with SERM use. Cox models compared the risk of VTE between ospemifene and comparators, using a variety of approaches to control for confounding. Results: The incidence of VTE during the first continuous treatment episode was 3.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-6.43) events per 1,000 person-years (PY) for ospemifene ( Conclusion: This real-world safety analysis found no increase in risk of VTE or other adverse events with use of ospemifene in postmenopausal women. Plain Language Summary:
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.