MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171440181 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20130036

Comparison of orally administered bisphosphonate drugs in reducing the risk of hip fracture in older adults: a population-based cohort study

2013· article· en· W2171440181 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Suzanne M. Cadarette, Linda E. Lévesque, Muhammad Mamdani, Sébastien Perreault, David N. Juurlink, J. Michael Paterson, Greg Carney, Nadia Gunraj, Gillian Hawker, Mina Tadrous, Lih‐Ming Wong, Colin R. Dormuth

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversité de MontréalSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHip fractureBisphosphonateHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineOsteoporosisEtidronic acidPropensity score matchingCohort studyProportional hazards modelCohortPopulationRelative riskEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Orally administered bisphosphonate drugs (i.e., alendronate, etidronate, risedronate) can reduce the risk of vertebral fracture. However, only alendronate and risedronate have proven efficacy in reducing the risk of hip fracture. We sought to examine the comparative effectiveness of orally administered bisphosphonate drugs in reducing hip fractures among older adults. METHODS: We identified new users of orally administered bisphosphonate drugs in British Columbia and Ontario between 2001 and 2008. We used province- and sex-specific propensity score-matching strategies to maximize comparability between exposure groups. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare time-to-hip fracture within 1 year of treatment between exposures by sex in each province. Our secondary analyses considered hip fracture rates within 2 and 3 years' follow-up. We used alendronate as the reference for all comparisons and pooled provincial estimates using random effects variance-weighted meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 321 755 patients who were eligible for inclusion in the study. We found little difference in fracture rates between men (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.14) or women (pooled HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.73-1.56) taking risedronate and those taking alendronate. We similarly identified little difference in fracture rates between women taking etidronate and those taking alendronate (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.18). However, we identified lower rates of hip fracture among men taking etidronate relative to alendronate (pooled HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.94). Results extended to 2 and 3 years' follow-up were similar. However, with 3 years' follow-up, rates of hip fracture were lower among women in British Columbia who had taken alendronate. INTERPRETATION: We identified little overall difference between alendronate and risedronate in reducing the risk of hip fracture in men or women. Our finding that etidronate is associated with lower fracture risk among men is likely due to selection bias. The long-term comparative effects of orally administered bisphosphonate drugs warrant further study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.355 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207