IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0123153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Three Treatments in Old People with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ling-Xiao Chen
  • Yu-Lin Li
  • Guang-Zhi Ning
  • Yan Li
  • Qiu-Li Wu
  • Jin-Xiu Guo
  • Hong-Yu Shi
  • Xiao-Bo Wang
  • Yong Zhou
  • Shi-Qing Feng

Abstract

Purpose: The question which kind of methods is most suitable for treating the old people for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture is still discussed and pairwise meta-analyses cannot get hierarchies of these treatments. Our aim is to integrate the evidence to provide hierarchies of the comparative efficacy measured by the change of VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) and tolerability measured by incidence of new fractures and risk of all-cause discontinuation on three treatments (percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP)、balloon kyphoplasty (BK) and conservative treatment(CT)). Methods: We performed a Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare three treatments for the old people with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. The eligible RCTs were identified by searching Amed, British Nursing Index, Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google scholar, SIGLE, the National Technical Information Service, the National Research Register (UK) and the Current Controlled Trials databases. Data from three outcomes (e.g. VAS, risk of all-cause discontinuation and incidence of new fractures) were independently extracted by two authors. Results: A total of five RCTs were finally included into this article. PVP and BK significantly decreased VAS when compared with CT. BK had a significantly lower risk of all-cause discontinuation contrast to CT. Three treatments (BK, PVP and CT) had no significant differences in the incidence of new fractures. Conclusions: PVP may be the best way to relieve pain, CT might lead to the lowest incidence of new fractures and BK might had the lowest risk of all-cause discontinuation in old people with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. More large-scale and longer duration of follow-up studies are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling-Xiao Chen & Yu-Lin Li & Guang-Zhi Ning & Yan Li & Qiu-Li Wu & Jin-Xiu Guo & Hong-Yu Shi & Xiao-Bo Wang & Yong Zhou & Shi-Qing Feng, 2015. "Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Three Treatments in Old People with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123153
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123153
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123153&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0123153?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yue-Mei Jin & Shan-Shan Liu & Jun Chen & Yan-Nan Chen & Chen-Chen Ren, 2018. "Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.