MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365515014 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10748

Bisphosphonates Preserve Bone Mineral Density and Suppress Bone Turnover Markers in Early Menopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials

2023· review· en· W4365515014 on OpenAlexafffund
Aria Ahadzadeh Ardebili, Timothy Fu, Nicole Dunnewold, Fariba Aghajafari, Emma O. Billington

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralMeta-analysisOsteoporosisRelative riskFemoral neckBone remodelingRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePlaceboBisphosphonateMenopauseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone mass and may have already sustained fractures. Short or intermittent courses of bisphosphonate therapy, initiated around the time of menopause, might prevent excessive bone loss and lower long‐term fracture risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of nitrogen‐containing bisphosphonates on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers in early menopausal women (ie, perimenopausal or <5 years postmenopausal) over ≥12 months. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched in July 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effect meta‐analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. In total, 12 trials were included ( n = 1722 women); five evaluated alendronate, three risedronate, three ibandronate, and one zoledronate. Four were at low risk of bias; eight raised some concerns. Fractures were infrequent in the three studies that reported them. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates improved BMD over 12 months (mean percentage difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]) at the spine (4.32%, 95% CI, 3.10%–5.54%, p < 0.0001, n = 8 studies), the femoral neck (2.56%, 95% CI, 1.85%–3.27%, p = 0.001, n = 6 studies), and the total hip (1.22%, 95% CI 0.16%–2.28%, p = 0.002, n = 4 studies). Over treatment durations of 24 to 72 months, bisphosphonates improved BMD at the spine (5.81%, 95% CI 4.71%–6.91%, p < 0.0001, n = 8 studies), femoral neck (3.89%, 95% CI 2.73%–5.05%, p = 0.0001, n = 5 studies) and total hip (4.09%, 95% CI 2.81%–5.37%, p < 0.0001, n = 4 studies). Bisphosphonates reduced urinary N‐telopeptide (−52.2%, 95% CI −60.3% to −44.2%, p < 0.00001, n = 3 studies) and bone‐specific alkaline phosphatase (−34.2%, 95% CI −42.6% to −25.8%, p < 0.00001, n = 4 studies) more than placebo at 12 months. This systematic review and meta‐analysis shows that bisphosphonates improve BMD and lower bone turnover markers in early menopause, warranting further investigation of these agents for osteoporosis prevention. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.026
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.405
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207