Evidence Hub

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies for reducing fracture risk in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis with additional data on long-term risk of fracture and cost of disease management

Thornton J, Ashcroft D, O'Neill T, Elliott R, Adams J, Roberts C, Rooney M, Symmons D

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2008

297 participants · 30 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review outcome measures and treatment costs in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and low bone mineral density (BMD) and/or fragility fractures. To review evidence for effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates and calcium and/or vitamin D in these children. To assess long-term bone health in adults with JIA.

DATA SOURCES

Major databases were searched up to July 2005 for effectiveness studies and up to January 2005 for costs.

REVIEW METHODS

A structured search strategy was conducted. For the evaluation of long-term bone health, outcome data were derived from two cohorts of adult patients with JIA. As there were few published cost data, an ongoing UK longitudinal study (CAPS) provided background data on the cost of managing JIA.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (78 children with JIA) were included. At baseline, the children had BMD below the expected values for age- and sex-matched children; treatment with bisphosphonates increased BMD with mean percentage increases in spine BMD varying from 4.5 to 19.1%. None of the studies with control groups compared results between the intervention and control groups, they only compared each group with its own baseline. Overall, studies were heterogeneous in design, of variable quality and with no consistency in methods of assessing and reporting outcomes. Hence, data could not be combined or an effect size calculated. A further 43 papers were included in the safety review; side-effects were generally transient. Two…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 297 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