Skip Navigation



QJM Advance Access published online on May 6, 2005
QJM, doi:10.1093/qjmed/hci070
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/6/403    most recent
hci070v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hosking, D.J.
Right arrow Articles by Rizzoli, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hosking, D.J.
Right arrow Articles by Rizzoli, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Review

Osteoporosis therapy: an example of putting evidence-based medicine into clinical practice

D.J. Hosking 1*, P. Geusens 2, and R. Rizzoli 3

1 From the Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2 From the Biomedical Research Institute--LUC, Diepenbeek, Belgium
3 From the Division of Bone Diseases, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
D.J. Hosking, E-mail: dhosking{at}ncht.trent.nhs.uk


  Abstract

A major aim of evidence-based medicine is to assist clinical decision-making by providing the most current and reliable medical information. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools in this process. Systematic reviews identify and compile relevant evidence, while meta-analyses summarize and quantify the results of such reviews. Results from meta-analyses are, at present, the main source of summary evidence for the efficacy of treatments for a specific condition. They are important tools for helping to choose among treatment options, although they cannot be used to directly compare the magnitude of the effect of various therapies. However, the methods used and the consequent clinical value of the results, may be poorly understood by clinicians, who may therefore not take full advantage of the evidence.

Recently, a panel of experts in osteoporosis and evidence-based medicine applied rigorous, validated, scientific standards to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of anti-resorptive agents used to treat osteoporosis. They found that, although several agents reduced the risk of vertebral fracture, only two, alendronate and risedronate, demonstrated convincing evidence for both non-vertebral and vertebral fracture risk reductions. The clinical implication of these results is that there are important differences in anti-fracture efficacy among currently available agents. In the absence of evidence from head-to-head clinical trials and because of the systematic nature and methodological rigor of the analyses, these data provide important information for clinical decision-making.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 IBMS BoneKEyHome page
A. Teti
New Concepts in Osteoclast Pathophysiology
IBMS BoneKEy, June 1, 2005; 2(6): 17 - 22.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.