Trial reportCalcified tissue international1996
A new biochemical marker of bone resorption for follow-up on treatment with nasal salmon calcitonin.
Trial report in Calcified tissue international, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early effect of nasal salmon calcitonin on the bone marker Crosslaps.Rheumatology international · 2006Trial
- Revisiting Intranasal Salmon Calcitonin: Historical Osteoporosis Evidence and a Potential Role in Acute Orthopaedic Pain Management.JBJS reviews · 2026Review
- Nasal calcitonin.Endocrine · 1997Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized group comparison, new and specific biochemical markers for bone resorption as follow-up parameters on the therapeutic response to nasal salmon calcitonin (sCT) were evaluated. Evaluation took place at an outpatient clinic where osteoporosis was being researched. The subjects included 208 women aged 68-72 treated for 2 years with either 50 IU, 100 IU, or 200 IU of nasal sCT or placebo; all groups received a daily calcium supplementation of 500 mg. Only 164 women fulfilled the study as valid completers. Markers were applied to frozen urine samples of a previously published intervention study of a new fasting urinary (fU) biochemical marker for bone resorption (CrossLapstrade mark, ELISA) and the urinary excretion of cross-links (pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline) was measured, all corrected for creatinine. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and rates of vertebral and peripheral fractures were measured after 2 years of treatment. The creatinine corrected urinary pyridinoline, deoxypyridinoline, and CrossLaps showed maximum decreases of 10-43% (95% confidence interval -29.5% to 9.6% and -75.1% to 9.3%; P < 0. 01-0.001) after 6-9 months, after which the response leveled off. A significant difference among the four treatment groups was seen in fU CrossLaps (P < 0.01). The changes in spinal bone mass were significantly related to the decreases in fU CrossLaps: women with the highest response in spinal bone mass had decreases in fU CrossLaps of 44% (-83.5% to 7.4%) and women without response of 5% (-57.6% to 99.9%) P < 0.001). In women who fractured during the 2-year period, fU CrossLaps remained unchanged, whereas decreases of 30% (-75.1% to 44.7%) were seen in women who did not fracture (P = 0. 002). The results suggest that biochemical markers can be used to determine the optimum treatment regimen of nasal sCT. The response of the new marker, fU CrossLaps, significantly reflects the responses in bone mass of the spine and fracture rates.
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.