Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016189›Full record

SynthesisCalcified tissue international2023

The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Magdalena Ruth Moshi, Konstance Nicolopoulos, Danielle Stringer, Ning Ma, Mathias Jenal, Thomas Vreugdenburg

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Calcified tissue international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Comparative efficacy of biosimilar denosumab and reference denosumab in treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  8. Comparative efficacy of biosimilar denosumab and reference denosumab in treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Disease Burden Attributable to Hip Fractures in Asian Women.International journal of women's health · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Magdalena Ruth MoshiResearch & Evaluation incorporating ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 24 King William Street, Kent Town, South Australia, 5067, Australia. college.asernip@surgeons.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2868-6505
Konstance NicolopoulosResearch & Evaluation incorporating ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 24 King William Street, Kent Town, South Australia, 5067, Australia.
Danielle StringerResearch & Evaluation incorporating ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 24 King William Street, Kent Town, South Australia, 5067, Australia.
Ning MaResearch & Evaluation incorporating ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 24 King William Street, Kent Town, South Australia, 5067, Australia.
Mathias JenalHealth Technology Assessment Section, Health Insurance Benefits Division, Health and Accident Insurance Directorate, Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Bern, Switzerland.
Thomas VreugdenburgResearch & Evaluation incorporating ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 24 King William Street, Kent Town, South Australia, 5067, Australia.
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons · AUFederal Office of Public Health · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalSpinal FracturesAlendronateBone DensityDenosumabDiphosphonatesFemaleHumansIbandronic AcidPostmenopauseRaloxifene HydrochlorideRisedronic AcidSelective Estrogen Receptor ModulatorsTreatment OutcomeAlendronateBone Density Conservation AgentsDenosumabDiphosphonatesIbandronic AcidRaloxifene HydrochlorideRisedronic AcidSelective Estrogen Receptor ModulatorsBisphosphonatesDenosumabNetwork meta-analysisPostmenopausal womenSelective estrogen receptor modulatorsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37016189
OpenAlexW4362601680

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.