Trial reportScientific reports2025
A randomized controlled trial comparing romosozumab and denosumab in elderly women with primary osteoporosis and knee osteoarthritis.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment of the efficacy and safety of anti-sclerostin antibody therapy for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Denosumab-efficacy, safety, persistence and sequential strategies-a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Revisiting the activate depress free and repeat (ADFR) paradigm: Clinical use of cyclic romosozumab.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Risk of Romosozumab vs. Teriparatide: A Cohort Study Using Japan's National Claims Database.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Greening Bone Healing: The Emerging Role of Plant-Derived Exosome-Like Nanoparticles in Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis Therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the efficacy of romosozumab and denosumab in elderly women with primary osteoporosis and knee osteoarthritis in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 112 participants aged 75-90 years were randomized equally into the romosozumab and denosumab groups. Among these, 49 and 52 participants, respectively, who received their initial dose were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was change in lumbar spine (LS)-bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months in the romosozumab group versus the denosumab group. Secondary outcomes were changes in knee osteophyte development, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and the incidence of serious adverse events. Mean age of participants was 80.9 years. There was no difference in baseline LS-BMD between the two groups, with a T-score of -2.6. The mean percentage change in LS-BMD at 12 months was significantly higher in the romosozumab group (13.7%) than in the denosumab group (8.5%; p = 0.0035). No significant differences were observed in knee osteophyte development and PROs between the two groups. Serious adverse events included a case of mitral regurgitation in the romosozumab group. These findings emphasize the need for refined treatment strategies in high-risk populations, highlighting romosozumab's benefits and the need to monitor cardiovascular risks.
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.