ArticleBMJ open2022
Comparative efficacy and safety of statins for osteoporosis: a study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized statin therapy: Targeting metabolic processes to modulate the therapeutic and adverse effects of statins.Heliyon · 2025Review
- The effects of simvastatin on the bone microstructure and mechanics of ovariectomized mice: a micro-CT and micro-finite element analysis study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Association of statin use with osteoporosis risk: a drug-targeted Mendelian randomization study.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Article
- Fatty infiltration in the musculoskeletal system: pathological mechanisms and clinical implications.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Circulating Monocytes Act as a Common Trigger for the Calcification Paradox of Osteoporosis and Carotid AtherosclerosisFrontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- The interplay between bone and heart health as reflected in medication effects: A narrative review.Women's health (London, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOsteoporosis (OP) is a prevalent skeletal disease with high mortality and morbidity, followed by acute and chronic back pain, severe spinal deformity and dysfunction. First-line drugs for OP work through antiresorptive or anabolic mechanisms. Although with good efficacy, these drugs still have certain limitations in clinical application due to delivery routes, medication cycles and cost issues. Nowadays, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) appear to be potentially promising drugs for OP. Despite the controversy, previous studies have shown the efficacy of statins in treating OP. Other studies have further indicated that the therapeutic effect of OP in statin-treated patients is dose dependent. However, scientists have not yet reached a consensus on the use of statins for the treatment or which statin to choose first. This study aims to review the literature, ascertaining the relative efficacy and safety of statins for patients with OP using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database and preprint servers to include randomised controlled trials that compare different statins for treating OP. Primary outcomes are the incidence of overall fractures and bone mineral density changes. Secondary outcomes contain adverse effects and bone turnover markers. All items of this review will comply with the Cochrane Handbook, and the quality of evidence will be evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A traditional pairwise meta-analysis and the Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of different statins. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since this is a protocol study for meta-analyses. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242619. SEARCH DATES: From database inception to February 2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.