MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strontium ranelate for preventing and treating postmenopausal osteoporosis

2006· reference-entry· en· W4236747590 on OpenAlexaff
S. O’Donnell, Ann Cranney, Wells Ga, Adachi Jd, JY Reginster

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrontium ranelateMedicineOsteoporosisPlaceboPopulationCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)Postmenopausal osteoporosisPhysical therapyInternal medicineBone mineralAlternative medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Strontium ranelate is a new anti-osteoporosis therapy 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 and industry sponsors. 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 and/or safety outcomes 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: A total of four trials met our inclusion criteria, three of which investigated the effects of strontium ranelate compared to placebo in a treatment population (doses ranged from 0.5 to 2 g daily) and one, in a prevention population (doses 0.125, 0.5 and 1 g daily). In osteoporotic, postmenopausal women a 37% reduction in vertebral fractures (two trials, n = 5082, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71) and a 14% reduction in non-vertebral fractures (two trials, n = 6572, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98) was demonstrated over a three year period with 2 g of strontium ranelate daily. An increase in BMD at all sites was shown with the same dose: lumbar spine BMD (two trials, n = 1614, WMD adjusted for strontium content 5.44, 95% CI 3.41 to 7.46 and WMD not adjusted 11.29, 95% CI 10.22 to 12.37 over two years), femoral neck and total hip (two trials, n = 4230, WMD 8.25, 95% CI 7.84 to 8.66 and WMD 9.83, 95% CI 9.39 to 10.26 respectively over three years). One gram of strontium ranelate daily in postmenopausal women without osteoporosis increased BMD at all sites over a two year period: lumbar spine (one trial, n = 59, WMD adjusted for strontium content 2.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.63 and WMD not adjusted 6.68, 95% CI 5.16 to 8.20), femoral neck (one trial, n= 60, WMD 2.52, 95%CI 0.96 to 4.09) and total hip (one trial, n = 60, WMD 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.56). In both the treatment and prevention populations, lower doses of strontium ranelate were superior to placebo with the highest dose of strontium ranelate demonstrating the greatest reduction in vertebral fractures and increase in BMD. There is some evidence to suggest that 2 g of strontium ranelate daily compared to placebo may have a beneficial effect on health related quality of life in postmenopausal women after three years of treatment. Two grams of strontium ranelate daily increased the risk of diarrhea (RR 1.38%, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.87); however, adverse events did not affect the risk of discontinuing strontium ranelate nor did it increase the risk of serious side effects, gastritis or death. Additional data obtained suggests that the risk of vascular system disorders including venous thromboembolism (two trials, n = 6669, 2.2% versus 1.5%, OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.1) and pulmonary embolism (two trials, n = 6669, 0.8% versus 0.4%, OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) as well as nervous system disorders such as headaches (3.9% versus 2.9%), seizures (0.3% versus 0.1%), memory loss (2.4% versus 1.9%) and disturbance in consciousness (2.5% versus 2.0%) is slightly increased with taking 2 g of strontium ranelate daily over a 3 to 4 year period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is silver level evidence to support the efficacy of strontium ranelate for the reduction of vertebral fractures (and to a lesser extent non-vertebral fractures) in postmenopausal osteoporotic women and an increase in BMD (all sites) in postmenopausal women with and without osteoporosis. Diarrhea may occur however, adverse events leading to study withdrawal were not significantly increased in the strontium ranelate group. Potential risks to the vascular and neurological system associated with taking 2 g of strontium ranelate daily need to be further explored and quantified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations75
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207