ArticleJBMR plus2025
How does bone recover in patients with tumor-induced osteomalacia? Long-term follow-up in a national cohort study.
Article in JBMR plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumor-induced osteomalacia (TIO) is a rare disorder characterized by impaired bone mineralization due to phosphate wasting. Long-term changes in BMD and microarchitecture after surgical cure or medical therapy in TIO are not well understood. This study describes changes in BMD, microarchitecture, and bone strength in patients with TIO following surgical cure or medical therapy. A prospective cohort study included adults diagnosed with TIO from May 2018 to 2024, categorized into those with surgical cure and those on medical therapy. Follow-up assessments were classified as early (median 8 mo), intermediate (median 17 mo), and long-term (median 26 mo). Fifteen patients were included: seven achieved surgical cure, and eight remained on medical therapy. Lumbar spine BMD increased by +19% at early, +27% at intermediate, and +15% at long-term follow-up. Total hip BMD increased by +31%, +36%, and +31% at early, intermediate, and long-term assessments, respectively. All patients achieved a normal lumbar spine BMD, while 91% attained a normal total hip BMD. At the distal tibia, substantial increases in bone microarchitecture parameters-cortical area (Ct.Ar), cortical volumetric density (Ct.vBMD), and cortical thickness (Ct.Th)-were observed. Notably, Ct.Th improved to levels comparable to healthy controls. Bone strength improved by 13% but was not statistically significant, probably due to the small sample size. At the distal radius, most parameters remained stable. Patients with surgical cure showed more rapid and substantial improvements in BMD and cortical microarchitecture than non-cured patients, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall, bone recovery in TIO is gradual, with gains in spine and hip BMD and significant improvements in tibial cortical parameters. However, some aspects of bone microarchitecture remained below control levels, underscoring the need for ongoing monitoring and individualized management strategies.
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.