↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate compared with treatment with risedronate alone in patients with osteoporosis: Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-03

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate compared with treatment with risedronate alone in patients with osteoporosis: Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-03
Published in
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00774-016-0768-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiro Tanaka, Teruhiko Miyazaki, Yukari Uemura, Nobuaki Miyakawa, Itsuo Gorai, Toshitaka Nakamura, Masao Fukunaga, Yasuo Ohashi, Hiroaki Ohta, Satoshi Mori, Hiroshi Hagino, Takayuki Hosoi, Toshitsugu Sugimoto, Eiji Itoi, Hajime Orimo, Masataka Shiraki

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate compared with treatment with risedronate alone in patients with osteoporosis and to explore subsets of patients for which concurrent treatment is particularly efficacious. Women with osteoporosis aged 65 years or older were recruited from 123 institutes in Japan and allocated to take either vitamin K2 (45 mg/day) and risedronate (2.5 mg/day or 17.5 mg/week) or risedronate (2.5 mg/day or 17.5 mg/week) alone. The primary end point was the incidence of any fracture (vertebral and nonvertebral). The secondary end points were bone mineral density, height, undercarboxylated osteocalcin concentration, quality of life, and safety. Over a 2-year follow-up, vertebral or nonvertebral fractures occurred in 117 or 22 sites respectively among 931 patients in the risedronate and vitamin K2 group and in 104 or 26 sites respectively among 943 patients in the risedronate alone group. The rates of any incident fracture were similar between the two groups (incidence rate ratio 1.074, 95 % confidence interval 0.811-1.422, p = 0.62), implying that the primary end point was not met. There were no differences in the degree of increase in bone mineral density between the two groups. Undercarboxylated osteocalcin concentration decreased from 5.81 ± 3.93 ng/mL to 2.59 ± 1.52 ng/mL at 6 months in the risedronate and vitamin K2 group, whereas the change in the risedronate alone group was minimal (from 5.96 ± 4.36 ng/mL to 4.05 ± 3.40 ng/mL at 6 months) (p < 0.01). The treatment discontinuation rate was higher in the risedronate and vitamin K2 group than in the risedronate alone group (10.0 % vs 6.7 %). No unknown adverse drug reactions were reported. In conclusion, concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate was not efficacious compared with monotherapy with risedronate in terms of fracture prevention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,629,861
of 23,842,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#103
of 787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,994
of 371,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,842,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.