ArticleScientific reports2025
Two-year outcomes of denosumab treatment for osteoporosis comparing the effects of calcium and vitamin D supplementation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Synergistic Efficacy of Calcitriol Combined with Denosumab versus Calcitriol Alone in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 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
Calcium and vitamin D supplementation is commonly recommended in conjunction with osteoporosis treatment. However, some patients are unable to tolerate or take these supplements due to various factors. This study aims to assess the impact of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone mineral density (BMD) changes over a two-year period in patients treated with denosumab, comparing those who received supplements with those who did not. This retrospective study included 344 patients who had received at least four doses of denosumab. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received calcium and vitamin D supplementation and those who did not. BMD was measured annually at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, and denosumab efficacy was assessed by calculating the percentage change in BMD from baseline. We also evaluated BMD changes according to patients' prior osteoporosis treatments and history of osteoporotic fractures. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted among treatment-naïve patients, comparing those who received denosumab alone with those who received denosumab combined with calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The study cohort consisted of 328 women, with a mean age of 70.50 ± 9.48 years. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding prior osteoporosis treatment (P = 0.004) and baseline lumbar spine BMD (P = 0.027). However, no significant differences were observed in BMD changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck after one and two years of denosumab treatment, regardless of calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The type of prior osteoporosis medication and the presence of low-energy fragility fractures did not significantly affect BMD changes at either time point. In treatment-naïve patients (n = 209), BMD gains did not differ significantly between those with and without supplementation. Notably, none of the patients reported experiencing adverse events such as injection site infections, myalgia, or symptomatic hypocalcemia. The two-year treatment with denosumab resulted in improvements in BMD that were independent of calcium and vitamin D supplementation. These findings suggest that denosumab may increase BMD regardless of supplementation, though further studies are warranted to confirm this relationship.
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.