ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid versus denosumab in the treatment of primary osteoporosis: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid versus denosumab in the treatment of primary osteoporosis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 328 patients diagnosed with primary osteoporosis at the Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Changhai Hospital, between January 2017 and December 2020. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 164 patients were enrolled and divided into the zoledronic acid group (n = 88) and the denosumab group (n = 76). Bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (L1-L4) and hip, bone turnover markers (including bone alkaline phosphatase, serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, and serum N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen), and adverse events were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 2, and 3 years post-treatment. Results: At baseline, the two groups exhibited no statistically significant differences in most parameters except for parathyroid hormone (PTH), lumbar spine BMD, and lumbar T-score. After three years of treatment, denosumab demonstrated superior efficacy compared to zoledronic acid in key outcome measures, including lumbar spine BMD (0.85 ± 0.17 vs. 0.81 ± 0.14), hip BMD (0.85 ± 0.13 vs. 0.79 ± 0.12), and β-CTX (0.27 ± 0.19 vs. 0.38 ± 0.23), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Both treatments demonstrated favorable safety profiles, with no serious adverse events reported. Conclusion: Denosumab exhibits superior long-term efficacy over zoledronic acid in improving bone mineral density and suppressing bone turnover. Both agents demonstrate excellent safety profiles and represent effective therapeutic options for the management of osteoporosis.
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.