ReviewPituitary2024
Novel approach to bone comorbidity in resistant acromegaly.
Review in Pituitary, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acromegaly complications: an update.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Review
- Osteometabolic complications in patients with secreting pituitary adenomas: Is there an impact of gender?Pituitary · 2026Review
- Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound parameters strongly correlate with DXA measurements in patients with acromegaly.Pituitary · 2026Observational
- Consensus on acromegaly complications: an update.Pituitary · 2026Article
- Acromegaly treatment and bone: a bidirectional relationship.Pituitary · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Active acromegaly may lead to irreversible complications. Among them, acromegaly osteopathy and fragility (vertebral and hip) fractures have emerged as frequent and precocious events in the natural history of the disease, being correlated with longer disease duration and higher growth hormone (GH) levels, accounting for patients' reported poor quality of life, physical performance and other life-impacting complications. Differently from primary osteoporosis, bone mineral density is not a reliable tool to predict fracture risk in this clinical setting, as patients with active disease frequently have normal or slightly reduced bone mass; whereas bone quality is particularly compromised, as determined by low trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with active disease as compared to healthy controls or patients with cured/controlled disease. The evidence of impaired bone microstructure has been profoundly investigated with different computed tomography (CT) techniques, reporting low trabecular number and thickness as well as wide but more porous cortical bone, providing an explanation for such a high prevalence of vertebral fractures (up to 40-50% in selected cohorts). Since data on bone-active drugs are scanty, disease control remains a cornerstone to prevent fractures. Nonetheless, some potential protective effects may derive from vitamin D supplementation and pasireotide therapies, independently from disease status. Aim of this manuscript is to review the current and emerging evidence on skeletal fragility in patients with active and resistant acromegaly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39570564What 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.