Cochrane · systematic review · CD010429

Treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta‐thalassaemia

Bhardwaj, A, Swe, KM, Sinha, NK · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library

SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
35
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
23
Included studies
NR
No studies 23 · 65.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 17.1%Low 3 · 8.6%Moderate 3 · 8.6%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Summary of findings – bisphosphonates versus placebo or no treatment

Population: adults with β‐thalassaemia and osteoporosis
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
BMD Z score (total hip/femoral neck)
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
BMD Z score (lumbar spine)
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
BMD Z score (wrist)
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Incidence of fractures
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extracted1 study · 118 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Mobility
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life (change in mean back pain)
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
no estimate extracted1 study · 118 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness
Adverse effects of treatment
Summary of findings – bisphosphonates vs placebo or no treatment
OR 152 studies · 143 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Summary of findings – different doses of bisphosphonates compared

Population: people with β‐thalassaemia and osteoporosis
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
BMD Z score (total hip/femoral neck)
no estimate extracted1 study · 26 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
BMD Z score (lumbar spine)
MD 0.43 [0.1, 0.76]1 study · 26 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
BMD Z score (wrist) Â
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Incidence of fractures
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mobility
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Adverse effects of treatment
no estimate extractedNRNo studies

Summary of findings – zinc versus placebo

Population: children and adults with β‐thalassaemia major and low bone mass
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
BMD Z score (total hip/femoral neck)
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
MD 0.15 [0.11, 0.19]1 study · 37 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
BMD Z score (lumbar spine)
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
MD 0.15 [0.1, 0.2]1 study · 37 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
BMD Z score (wrist)
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Incidence of fractures
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mobility
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Adverse effects of treatment
Summary of findings – zinc vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies

Summary of findings – denosumab versus placebo

Population: adults with β‐thalassaemia and low bone mass
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
BMD Z score (total hip/femoral neck)
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
MD 0.051 study · 63 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness
BMD Z score (lumbar spine)
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extracted1 study · 63 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness
BMD Z score (wrist)
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extracted1 study · 63 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness
Incidence of fractures
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mobility
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Adverse effects of treatment
Summary of findings – denosumab vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies

Summary of findings – strontium ranelate versus placebo

Population: women with low bone mass and β‐thalassaemia
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
BMD Z score (total hip/femoral neck)
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
BMD Z score (lumbar spine)
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extracted1 study · 24 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
BMD Z score (wrist)
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Incidence of fractures
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mobility
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life (back pain VAS score in cm)
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extracted1 study · 24 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse effects of treatment
Summary of findings – strontium ranelate vs placebo
no estimate extractedNRNo studies