The Efficacy and Safety of Bisphosphonate Therapy for Osteopenia/Osteoporosis in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and safety of bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the setting of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. Objective: To determine the effect of bisphosphonate therapy on fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), and adverse events in adults across the spectrum of CKD and dialysis. Design: Systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis. Setting: Searches of Ageline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Medline from inception to August 25, 2016, supplemented with manual screening and clinicalstudydatarequest.com. Authors were contacted for individual patient-level data. Patients: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials with 100 or more participants that evaluated the treatment of primary osteoporosis/osteopenia in adult men and women with bisphosphonate therapy. Measurements: Study characteristics, quality, and data were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Outcome measures were fractures, BMD, and adverse events including decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hypocalcemia (calcium <2.00 mmol/L). Methods: Single-stage individual patient-level meta-analysis. Results: > 0.05). Limitations: Clinically significant heterogeneity among studies, lack of long-term follow-up and bone biopsy results, limited representation of stage G4 and G5 CKD patients. Conclusions: Chronic kidney disease potentially modifies the efficacy but not the safety of bisphosphonate therapy in osteopenia and osteoporosis. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020145613.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".