Evidence Hub

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and bone health outcomes: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

N. Veronese, C. Luchini, M. Solmi, G. Sergi, E. Manzato, B. Stubbs

Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, 2017

52,304 participants · 35 citations

Abstract

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a common condition in the elderly. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between MGUS and bone health outcomes including bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis and fractures, but no meta-analysis exists. We conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis comparing bone health outcomes in patients with MGUS. Two independent authors searched PubMed and Scopus from inception until 19 October 2016. A meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating fractures and BMD was conducted. Standardised mean differences (SMD) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for BMD, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for prevalent and incident fractures. Of 174 initial hits, 10 studies of moderate methodological quality were eligible, including 8711 individuals with MGUS vs. 52,865 controls. Compared to controls, subjects with MGUS showed significantly lower values for radial cortical volumetric BMD (1 study; SMD = -5.45, 95% CI: -7.24 to -3.66), but not at the lumbar spine, femoral neck or hip. The incidence of fractures was higher in people with MGUS (n = 7466) vs. controls (n = 52,304) (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.28-1.44, I 2 = 0%) over a median of 12.5-year follow-up. The incidence of vertebral fractures was particularly elevated (RR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.53-4.06) although limited to two studies. In conclusion, although with limitations, our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 52,304 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free