ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of Denosumab with Romosozumab in the treatment of male osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Managing Rebound Bone Loss After Denosumab Discontinuation: Mechanisms, Risk Stratification, and Sequential Therapy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Inequities Across the Spectrum of Osteoporosis Care and Post-Fracture Management in Men.Current osteoporosis reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the efficacy of romosozumab treatment compared with that of denosumab in especially male osteoporosis patients. This retrospective cohort study included 174 Japanese male patients receiving either denosumab or romosozumab for 12 months. Propensity score matching extracted 50 patients per treatment group for standardization of group characteristics. The endpoints include the rate of change in the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck after 12 months of treatment as well as the changes in serum bone metabolism markers. The mean 12-month percentage increase in the lumbar spine BMD from baseline was significantly greater with romosozumab (13.0% ±1.7%) than with denosumab (4.5%±0.6%) (P < 0.01). The total hip and femoral neck BMD exhibited a similar trend at 12 months; however, no significant between-group differences were observed. With denosumab, bone formation, and resorption marker levels significantly decreased at 6 and 12 months. Conversely, with romosozumab, the levels of bone formation markers increased transiently at 6 months before returning to baseline, whereas bone resorption markers significantly decreased at both time points. Romosozumab demonstrated significantly superior effects over denosumab in improving BMD, especially of the lumbar spine, suggesting that romosozumab can be used for treating male osteoporosis.
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.