Lin · Journal of clinical medicine 2021 · Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials · n=94 studies (15,776 participants)

Efficacy and Safety of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Cited 27 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of 94 randomized controlled trials

PubMed 34300210 · doi:10.3390/jcm10143043 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar through October 31, 2020. The authors included randomized placebo-controlled trials involving postmenopausal females with osteoporosis that evaluated percentage changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and/or adverse events across various pharmacological treatments.

What was found

Ninety-four RCTs comprising 15,776 postmenopausal females were included. Most treatments improved BMD compared to placebo. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rankings, strontium ranelate, fluoride, and hormone replacement therapy were the most effective for total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius BMD, respectively. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) was most effective for preventing new hip fractures. Bisphosphonates, monoclonal antibodies, and fluoride showed balanced BMD increases across all anatomic sites. When balancing multi-site BMD efficacy, hip fracture prevention, and risk of complications and mortality, bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies emerged as the most favorable interventions overall (specific numerical effect estimates and confidence intervals were not reported in the abstract).

Why it matters

This analysis clarifies comparative trade-offs among osteoporosis drug classes, indicating that treatment effects on BMD are site-dependent and supporting bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies as top-tier choices when balancing efficacy and safety.

Limits

The abstract omits all numerical point estimates, confidence intervals, and specific adverse event rates. It does not detail treatment durations, drug dosages, specific agents within classes (e.g., individual monoclonal antibodies or bisphosphonates), or assessments of study quality and network heterogeneity.

Cited by