SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024
Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, denosumab, teriparatide, oral bisphosphonates, and intravenous bisphosphonates in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of anabolic and anti-resorptive agents for preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of denosumab, risedronate, alendronate and teriparatide to treat male osteoporosis: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Hijacking the bone niche: mechanistic insights into bone metastasis in breast cancer.Bone research · 2026Review
- Molecular role of developmentally regulated GTP-binding protein 1 in coordinating osteoclast and osteoblast differentiation during bone remodeling.Molecules and cells · 2026Article
- Management of bone health in cancer survivorship: a systematic review of clinical guidelines.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Synergistic Efficacy of Calcitriol Combined with Denosumab versus Calcitriol Alone in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid versus denosumab in the treatment of primary osteoporosis: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The Conundrum of Medical Fracture Prevention in Chronic Kidney Disease-Summary of the Evidence and Pragmatic Clinical Guidance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy of denosumab versus alendronate for aromatase inhibitor-associated osteoporosis in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Epileptic seizures associated with denosumab.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- Beyond Bone Mineral Density: Real-World Fracture Risk Profiles and Therapeutic Gaps in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative outcomes of denosumab and zoledronic acid discontinuation in hip fracture surgery: a nationwide database study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Scaffolds and Drug Delivery Systems in Treatment of Osteoporosis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Beyond Bone Remodeling: Denosumab's Multisystemic Benefits in Musculoskeletal Health, Metabolism, and Age-Related Diseases-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Cherubism in a 4-Year-Old Boy: A Clinical, Radiological, and Genetic Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38733394What 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.