Evidence Hub

Conservative treatments for non-surgically managed osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a network meta-analysis of long-term pain and quality of life

Chao WC, Chen YH, Shih JC, Cheng B, Hu MH

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026

1,512 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate and rank the long-term effectiveness of conservative interventions for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Teriparatide demonstrated the greatest efficacy for both pain relief and quality of life improvement, significantly outperforming other non-surgical options. These results highlight the superior benefit of specific pharmacological therapies over other conservative strategies for long-term patient outcomes.

Purpose: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are a major cause of pain, disability, and poor quality of life (QoL) in the elderly population. Although non-surgical interventions are widely used, long-term comparative evidence remains limited. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate and rank the long-term (≥ 6 months) effectiveness of conservative interventions for OVCFs in terms of pain relief and QoL improvement.

Methods: Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials involving adults (≥ 50 years) with radiographically confirmed OVCFs. Interventions included pharmacologic therapies (e.g., teriparatide, denosumab), exercise, manual therapy, and combination strategies. Outcomes were standardized across studies and analyzed using a frequentist random-effects model.

Results: Twelve full articles (n = 1512) met the inclusion criteria. Teriparatide demonstrated the…

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: 1,512 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