SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative effectiveness of bone-protective interventions for aromatase inhibitors-induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the efficacy of bone-protective interventions in preventing AIs-induced bone loss at lumbar spine and hip sites. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and clinical trial registries from inception to February 28, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating bone-protective interventions in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving AI therapy. Primary outcomes were changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine and total hip at 12 and 24 months. Network meta-analysis was performed using Bayesian methods with R software and WinBUGS. Treatment rankings were assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Results: Seventeen RCTs involving 6,932 postmenopausal patients were included, comparing six interventions: denosumab, alendronate, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, risedronate, and eldecalcitol plus risedronate. At 12 months, denosumab demonstrated superior lumbar spine BMD improvement (SUCRA = 0.88, WMD = 5.63, 95% CI: 4.67-6.59), while ibandronate showed optimal hip BMD preservation (SUCRA = 0.94, WMD = 4.23, 95% CI: 2.91-5.43). At 24 months, denosumab maintained its advantage for lumbar spine (SUCRA = 0.83, WMD = 7.96, 95% CI: 5.38-10.52), whereas eldecalcitol plus risedronate showed the highest SUCRA ranking for hip preservation (SUCRA = 0.83, WMD = 6.38, 95% CI: 3.38-9.61). All active interventions significantly outperformed calcium plus vitamin D supplementation alone. Given that the eldecalcitol plus risedronate regimen was evaluated in only one randomized trial with a relatively small sample size, this finding should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusion: Among single agents, denosumab provides superior lumbar spine bone protection while ibandronate offers optimal hip bone preservation in AI-treated breast cancer patients. For extended therapy, combination regimens incorporating eldecalcitol with risedronate may show promising hip bone protection, though this conclusion is based on a single small-sample study and requires further validation. These findings support site-specific and duration-dependent treatment selection strategies. Further head-to-head trials are warranted to validate optimal treatment sequences. Clinical trial number: PROSPERO (CRD420251008444).
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.