ReviewCureus2025
Nandrolone Decanoate for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Anti-osteoporotic Pharmacotherapy and Muscle Outcomes in Osteosarcopenia: a Source-Verified Translational Evidence Map.Calcified tissue international · 2026Review
- Revisiting Intranasal Salmon Calcitonin: Historical Osteoporosis Evidence and a Potential Role in Acute Orthopaedic Pain Management.JBJS reviews · 2026Review
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
Postmenopausal osteoporosis is often accompanied by reduced muscle mass and chronic bone pain, amplifying fracture risk and functional decline. Nandrolone decanoate (ND), a synthetic anabolic steroid, has been proposed as a dual-acting agent that may benefit both bone and muscle through osteoanabolic and myoanabolic mechanisms, yet its therapeutic value in osteoporosis remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ND with placebo in postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251147647). Seven trials with 293 participants were included, with sample sizes varying by outcome. ND reduced fracture risk compared with placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). It produced modest increases in bone mineral density (BMD; low certainty) and more substantial gains in forearm bone mineral content (BMC; moderate certainty). ND also reduced pain (moderate certainty) and increased muscle mass (moderate certainty). However, ND was associated with a higher incidence of mostly mild virilizing adverse events (hirsutism, acne, voice changes; low certainty). Given the small sample sizes and methodological limitations of older trials, ND may be considered as a potential adjuvant option for selected postmenopausal women, particularly when muscle loss or refractory bone pain is present, provided treatment occurs under close clinical and laboratory monitoring. Larger, contemporary randomized trials are needed to define ND's role within modern osteoporosis management.
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.