↓ Skip to main content

Bisphosphonate therapy for osteogenesis imperfecta

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 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
Bisphosphonate therapy for osteogenesis imperfecta
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005088.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry Dwan, Carrie A Phillipi, Robert D Steiner, Donald Basel

Abstract

Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or no trauma. Bisphosphonates are used in an attempt to increase bone mineral density and reduce these fractures in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To assess the effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density, reducing fractures and improving clinical function in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We additionally searched PubMed and major conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Register: 28 April 2016. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing bisphosphonates to placebo, no treatment, or comparator interventions in all types of osteogenesis imperfecta. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Fourteen trials (819 participants) were included. Overall, the trials were mainly at a low risk of bias, although selective reporting was an issue in several of the trials. Data for oral bisphosphonates versus placebo could not be aggregated; a statistically significant difference favouring oral bisphosphonates in fracture risk reduction and number of fractures was noted in two trials. No differences were reported in the remaining three trials which commented on fracture incidence. Five trials reported data for spine bone mineral density; all found statistically significant increased lumbar spine density z scores for at least one time point studied. For intravenous bisphosphonates versus placebo, aggregated data from two trials showed no statistically significant difference for the number of participants with at least one fracture, risk ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.06). In the remaining trial no statistically significant difference was noted in fracture incidence. For spine bone mineral density, no statistically significant difference was noted in the aggregated data from two trials, mean difference 9.96 (95% confidence interval -2.51 to 22.43). In the remaining trial a statistically significant difference in mean per cent change in spine bone mineral density z score favoured intravenous bisphosphonates at six and 12 months. Data describing growth, bone pain, and functional outcomes after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy, or both, as compared to placebo were incomplete among all studies, but do not show consistent improvements in these outcomes. Two studies compared different doses of bisphosphonates. No differences were found between doses when bone mineral density, fractures, and height or length z score were assessed. One trial compared oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates and found no differences in primary outcomes. Two studies compared the intravenous bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate. There were no significant differences in primary outcome. However, the studies were at odds as to the relative benefit of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for lumbosacral bone mineral density at 12 months. Bisphophonates are commonly prescribed to individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta. Current evidence, albeit limited, demonstrates oral or intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in children and adults with this condition. These were not shown to be different in their ability to increase bone mineral density. It is unclear whether oral or intravenous bisphosphonate treatment consistently decreases fractures, though multiple studies report this independently and no studies report an increased fracture rate with treatment. The studies included here do not show bisphosphonates conclusively improve clinical status (reduce pain; improve growth and functional mobility) in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Given their current widespread and expected continued use, the optimal method, duration of therapy and long-term safety of bisphosphonate therapy require further investigation. In addition, attention should be given to long-term fracture reduction and improvement in quality of life indicators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 257 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 17%
Student > Master 40 15%
Researcher 35 13%
Unspecified 32 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 11%
Other 81 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 49%
Unspecified 43 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Other 38 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,745,676
of 13,756,564 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,482
of 10,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,923
of 289,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,756,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 289,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.