ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Modulatory efficacy of bone metabolism and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone and joint osteoporosis in elderly men.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Effect of zoledronic acid combined with simvastatin on postoperative recovery of elderly patients with osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Suspected Denosumab-Associated Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsArticle
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
Objective: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) in the treatment of osteoporosis in elderly male patients, with the goal of optimizing therapeutic strategies for this population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 89 elderly male osteoporosis patients treated at Sheyang County People's Hospital from March 2023 to March 2024. Patients were allocated to two treatment arms based on the treatment regimen they received: the denosumab group (n = 49) and the ZA group (n = 40). Adverse drug reactions (e.g., myalgia, flu-like symptoms, and back pain) were recorded, and changes in bone metabolism markers and bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (L1-L4), femoral neck, and total hip were evaluated after 1 year of treatment. Results: After 1 year of treatment, BMD of lumbar spine significantly increased in both groups (P < 0.05), with the denosumab group showing a greater improvement (0.41 ± 0.68 vs. 0.14 ± 0.86, P = 0.037). In contrast, the ZA group demonstrated superior efficacy in BMD of femoral neck (P = 0.011) and total hip (P = 0.029). Adverse reactions occurred in 15 patients: 2 in the denosumab group (muscle pain) and 13 in the ZA group (10 flu-like symptoms, 2 muscle pain, and 1 back pain). The incidence of flu-like symptoms was significantly higher in the ZA group (32.5% vs. 0%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Denosumab demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing fracture risk at the lumbar spine, while ZA showed greater protective effects at the hip. Although both agents significantly improved bone metabolic parameters, denosumab exhibited a more favorable safety profile in clinical application.
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.