SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
The efficacy and safety of denosumab, risedronate, alendronate and teriparatide to treat male osteoporosis: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. 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.
- Comparative safety of denosumab and romosozumab in osteoporosis: an analysis based on the FDA adverse event reporting system database.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Bone Material Properties in Male Idiopathic Osteoporosis.Calcified tissue international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Male osteoporosis treatment lacks robust comparisons of efficacy and safety among key medications. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to systematically evaluate alendronate (ALE), risedronate (RIS), teriparatide (TER), and denosumab (DEN) in male patients, addressing this critical evidence gap. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and NMA. Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these drugs in males with osteoporosis (PICOS criteria). Pairwise meta-analysis (Stata 18.0) assessed effect sizes, while NMA (R 4.3.1, gemtc and BUGSnet packages) ranked treatments for BMD changes (lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip) and safety outcomes (adverse and serious adverse events). Results: From 2729 screened records, 12 studies were included. TER ranked highest for lumbar spine BMD improvement and overall safety (lowest adverse events). ALE showed superior femoral neck and total hip BMD gains but higher adverse event risks vs. TER. DEN improved BMD at all sites but had the poorest safety profile (highest adverse events). RIS was safest (lowest serious adverse events) but least effective for BMD enhancement. Conclusions: Teriparatide is the optimal choice for improving lumbar spine BMD and overall safety, while alendronate shows significant efficacy in enhancing femoral neck and hip BMD, although its safety profile is less favorable. Thus, alendronate may be more suitable for patients needing bone density improvement at these sites. Treatment choices should weigh site-specific needs against risk tolerance. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42024599021.
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.