↓ Skip to main content

Bisphosphonates for steroid-induced osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bisphosphonates for steroid-induced osteoporosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001347.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire S Allen, James HS Yeung, Ben Vandermeer, Joanne Homik

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. Corticosteroids are widely used in inflammatory conditions as an immunosuppressive agent. Bone loss is a serious side effect of this therapy. Several studies have examined the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and have reported varying magnitudes of effect. To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of GIOP in adults. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase up to April 2016 and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) via OVID up to January 2012 for relevant articles and conference proceedings with no language restrictions. We searched two clinical trial registries for ongoing and recently completed studies (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal). We also reviewed reference lists of relevant review articles. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfying the following criteria: 1) prevention or treatment of GIOP; 2) adults taking a mean steroid dose of 5.0 mg/day or more; 3) active treatment including bisphosphonates of any type alone or in combination with calcium or vitamin D; 4) comparator treatment including a control of calcium or vitamin D, or both, alone or with placebo; and 4) reporting relevant outcomes. We excluded trials that included people with transplant-associated steroid use. At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed 'risk of bias' assessment and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Major outcomes of interest were the incidence of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures after 12 to 24 months; the change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck after 12 months; serious adverse events; withdrawals due to adverse events; and quality of life. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included a total of 27 RCTs with 3075 participants in the review. Pooled analysis for incident vertebral fractures included 12 trials (1343 participants) with high-certainty evidence and low risk of bias. In this analysis 46/597 (or 77 per 1000) people experienced new vertebral fractures in the control group compared with 31/746 (or 44 per 1000; range 27 to 70) in the bisphosphonate group; relative improvement of 43% (9% to 65% better) with bisphosphonates; absolute increased benefit of 2% fewer people sustaining fractures with bisphosphonates (5% fewer to 1% more); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 31 (20 to 145) meaning that approximately 31 people would need to be treated with bisphosphonates to prevent new vertebral fractures in one person.Pooled analysis for incident nonvertebral fractures included nine trials with 1245 participants with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and serious risk of bias as a patient-reported outcome). In this analysis 30/546 (or 55 per 1000) people experienced new nonvertebral fracture in the control group compared with 29/699 (or 42 per 1000; range 25 to 69) in the bisphosphonate group; relative improvement of 21% with bisphosphonates (33% worse to 53% better); absolute increased benefit of 1% fewer people with fractures with bisphosphonates (4% fewer to 1% more).Pooled analysis on BMD change at the lumbar spine after 12 months included 23 trials with 2042 patients. Eighteen trials with 1665 participants were included in the pooled analysis on BMD at the femoral neck after 12 months. Evidence for both outcomes was moderate-certainty (downgraded for indirectness as a surrogate marker for osteoporosis) with low risk of bias. Overall, the bisphosphonate groups reported stabilisation or increase in BMD, while the control groups showed decreased BMD over the study period. At the lumbar spine, there was an absolute increase in BMD of 3.5% with bisphosphonates (2.90% to 4.10% higher) with a relative improvement of 1.10% with bisphosphonates (0.91% to 1.29%); NNTB 3 (2 to 3). At the femoral neck, the absolute difference in BMD was 2.06% higher in the bisphosphonate group compared to the control group (1.45% to 2.68% higher) with a relative improvement of 1.29% (0.91% to 1.69%); NNTB 5 (4 to 7).Pooled analysis on serious adverse events included 15 trials (1703 participants) with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). In this analysis 131/811 (or 162 per 1000) people experienced serious adverse events in the control group compared to 136/892 (or 147 per 1000; range 120 to 181) in the bisphosphonate group; absolute increased harm of 0% more serious adverse events (2% fewer to 2% more); a relative per cent change with 9% improvement (12% worse to 26% better).Pooled analysis for withdrawals due to adverse events included 15 trials (1790 patients) with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). In this analysis 63/866 (or 73 per 1000) people withdrew in the control group compared to 76/924 (or 77 per 1000; range 56 to 107) in the bisphosphonate group; an absolute increased harm of 1% more withdrawals with bisphosphonates (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% more); a relative per cent change 6% worse (95% CI 47% worse to 23% better).Quality of life was not assessed in any of the trials. There was high-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates are beneficial in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures with data extending to 24 months of use. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may make little or no difference in preventing nonvertebral fractures. There was moderate-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates are beneficial in preventing and treating corticosteroid-induced bone loss at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Regarding harm, there was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may make little or no difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. We are cautious in interpreting these data as markers for harm and tolerability due to the potential for bias.Overall, our review supports the use of bisphosphonates to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures and the prevention and treatment of steroid-induced bone loss.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 161 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 25 15%
Other 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 59 36%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 62%
Unspecified 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#401,771
of 13,047,076 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,238
of 10,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,001
of 266,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,047,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 266,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.