MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strontium ranelate for preventing and treating postmenopausal osteoporosis

2006· review· en· W1769318967 on OpenAlexaff
S. O’Donnell, Ann Cranney, Wells Ga, Adachi Jd, Reginster Jy

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrontium ranelatePostmenopausal osteoporosisStrontiumOsteoporosisChemistryMedicineInternal medicineBone mineralOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Strontium ranelate is a new treatment for osteoporosis therefore, its benefits and harms need to be known. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1996 to March 2005), EMBASE (1996 to week 9 2005), the Cochrane Library (1996 to Issue 1 2005), reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings from the last two years. Additional data was sought from authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration comparing strontium ranelate versus placebo reporting fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), health related quality of life or safety in postmenopausal women. Treatment (versus prevention) population was defined as women with prevalent vertebral fractures and/or lumbar spine BMD T score < -2.5 SD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed trial quality and extracted the relevant data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RCTs were grouped by dose of strontium ranelate and treatment duration. Where possible, meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Three included a treatment population (0.5 to 2 g of strontium ranelate daily) and one a prevention population (0.125 g, 0.5 g and 1 g daily). A 37% reduction in vertebral fractures (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56, 0.71) and a 14% reduction in non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75, 0.98) were demonstrated over three years with 2 g of strontium ranelate daily in a treatment population. An increase in BMD was shown at all BMD sites after two to three years in both populations. Lower doses of strontium ranelate were superior to placebo and the highest dose demonstrated the greatest reduction in vertebral fractures and increase in BMD. An increased risk of diarrhea with 2 g of strontium ranelate was found; however, adverse events did not affect the risk of discontinuing treatment nor did it increase the risk of serious side effects, gastritis or death. Additional data suggests that the risk of vascular and nervous system side-effects is slightly increased with taking 2 g of strontium ranelate daily over three to four years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) to support the efficacy of strontium ranelate for the reduction of fractures (vertebral and to a lesser extent non-vertebral) in postmenopausal osteoporotic women and an increase in BMD in postmenopausal women with/without osteoporosis. Diarrhea may occur however, adverse events leading to study withdrawal were not significantly increased with taking 2 g of strontium ranelate daily. Potential vascular and neurological side-effects need to be further explored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations180
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207