MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

2008· article· en· W4327849113 on OpenAlexaff
George A. Wells, Ann Cranney, Joan Peterson, Michel Boucher, Beverley Shea, Vivian Welch, Doug Coyle, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthOttawa HospitalCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskOsteoporosisPlaceboBisphosphonateInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAbsolute risk reductionMeta-analysisSurgeryConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. Objectives To assess the efficacy of residronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007 were identified. Selection criteria Women receiving at least one year of risedronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis were compared to those receiving placebo or concurrent calcium/vitamin D or both. The outcome was fracture incidence. Data collection and analysis We carried out study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. Study quality was assessed through the reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals. Meta‐analysis was preformed using relative risks and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. Main results Seven trials were included in the review representing 14,049 women. Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 5 mg dose were as follows. Risk estimates for primary prevention were available only for vertebral and non vertebral fractures and showed no statistically significant effect of risedronate on fractures. For secondary prevention, a significant 39% RRR in vertebral fractures (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76) with 5% ARR was found. For non‐vertebral fractures, a significant 20% RRR (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90) with 2% ARR and for hip fractures there was a significant 26% RRR (RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94) with a 1% ARR. When primary and secondary prevention studies were combined, the reduction in fractures remained statistically significant for both vertebral (RR 0.63, 0.51 to 0.77) and non vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 0.72 to 0.90) For adverse events, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the included studies. However, observational data has led to concerns regarding the potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw. Authors' conclusions At 5 mg/day a statistically significant and clinically important benefit in the secondary prevention of vertebral, non‐vertebral and hip fractures was observed, but not for wrist. The level of evidence for secondary prevention is Gold (www.cochranemsk.org) for vertebral and non‐vertebral and Silver for hip and wrist. There were no statistically significant reductions in the primary prevention of vertebral and non‐vertebral fractures. The level of evidence is Silver.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations213
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207