Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42110973›Full record

Trial reportJBMR plus2026

Efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Bmab 1000 vs reference denosumab: 78-wk results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-arm Phase 3 trial (DEVOTE) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Richard Eastell, Eric Orwoll, Felicia Cosman, Rafal Plebanski, Kuldeep Kumar, Ashwani Marwah, Sarika S Deodhar, Elena Wolff-Holz, Subramanian Loganathan

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JBMR plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Richard EastellDivision of Clinical Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0323-3366
Eric OrwollDivision of Endocrinology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8520-7355
Felicia CosmanRegional Bone and Clinical Research Centers, Helen Hayes Hospital, West Haverstraw, NY 10993, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4554-6616
Rafal PlebanskiDepartment of Clinic of Healthy Bone, Klinika Zdrowej Kosci, 91-843 Lodz, Poland.
Kuldeep KumarClinical Development and Medical Affairs, Biocon Biologics Limited, Bengaluru 560100, India.
Ashwani MarwahClinical Development and Medical Affairs, Biocon Biologics Limited, Bengaluru 560100, India.
Sarika S DeodharClinical Development and Medical Affairs, Biocon Biologics Limited, Bengaluru 560100, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4010-8505
Elena Wolff-HolzClinical Development and Medical Affairs, Biocon Biologics UK Limited, London WC2B 5AH, United Kingdom.
Subramanian LoganathanClinical Development and Medical Affairs, Biocon Biologics Limited, Bengaluru 560100, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of Bmab 1000 vs reference denosumab in 479 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Participants (mean age 66.6 yr; lumbar spine T-score ≤-2.5 to ≥-4.0) were randomized 1:1 to receive 60 mg Bmab 1000 (

Indexed as

BMDbone turnoverlumbar spineosteoporosispostmenopausal women

Identifiers

PMID42110973
PMCPMC13156503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.