Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2025
Comparative Effects of Minodronate and Alendronate on Low Back Pain in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis and Age Influence: A Head-to-Head, Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05673980 (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Oral Vitamin D2 for the Prevention of COVID-19), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Oral Vitamin D2 for the Prevention of COVID-19
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of minodronate versus alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis-related low back pain and evaluate age-dependent treatment responses. Methods: In this prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial, 72 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were stratified by age (≥75 vs <75 years) and allocated to 24-week treatment with daily minodronate (1 mg) or alendronate (10 mg). The primary endpoint was Visual Analogue Scale score changes from baseline to week 12. Secondary outcomes included age-stratified changes in lumbar spine and hip bone mineral density, along with serum bone turnover markers across different age groups (≥75 vs <75 years). Results: Both regimens demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy, with significant within-group Visual Analogue Scale reductions (minodronate: 11.08±1.52%; alendronate: 9.86±1.29%; P<0.01 for both) but no between-group difference (P=0.237). At week 24, comparable lumbar bone mineral density improvements were observed (minodronate: 2.42%, 95% CI 1.8-3.1; alendronate: 4.84%, 95% CI 3.9-5.7; P=0.103). Marked bone turnover markers suppression persisted in both arms (CTX: 46.14% vs 41.25%; P1NP: 44.82% vs 44.11%). Age-stratified analyses revealed comparable therapeutic responses across subgroups (P>0.05). Safety profiles were similar, with adverse event rates of 29.7% (minodronate) versus 43.2% (alendronate) (P=0.10), predominantly mild upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Conclusion: Both bisphosphonates demonstrated equivalent analgesic efficacy and comparable bone mineral density and biochemical effects, with age-independent responses. Safety profiles were similar, supporting clinical selection based on dosing convenience and gastrointestinal tolerance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05673980 (08/12/2022).
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.