ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Statins in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- VB5 modulates osteoclast metabolic reprogramming and suppresses differentiation by blocking PKM2 nuclear translocation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a prevalent metabolic bone disease in postmenopausal women, characterized by reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk. Statins, commonly prescribed for cardiovascular conditions, have been suggested to possess bone-modulating effects via the mevalonate pathway. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of statins in improving BMD and reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis. A comprehensive literature search identified six randomized controlled trials involving 1,032 participants. Primary outcomes included changes in BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and forearm, along with bone turnover markers and fracture incidence. Pooled analyses showed no significant improvement in lumbar spine BMD (mean difference (MD): 13.72%; 95% CI: -19.31 to 46.74; p = 0.42; I² = 100%) or femoral neck BMD (MD: -0.18%; 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.10; p = 0.20; I² = 99%). A statistically significant 1.1% increase in forearm BMD was observed at 52 weeks (p = 0.01), though this effect was based on a single study and lacked generalizability. Bone turnover marker findings were inconsistent, and none of the studies demonstrated significant reductions in fracture risk. The quality of evidence was rated moderate to low due to high heterogeneity and methodological limitations. Overall, statins appear to have limited and site-specific effects on BMD, with insufficient evidence to support their use as a primary therapy for osteoporosis. However, their adjunctive role may be considered in select patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease. Further research is needed to determine long-term benefits, fracture prevention potential, and cost-effectiveness in this population.
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.