Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of Jintiange in the treatment of osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Man Y, Na J, Wang H, Lan F, Yu L

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025

2,580 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Jintiange in osteoporosis treatment via systematic review and meta-analysis, thereby presenting more supporting evidence.

Methods: Up to 27 October 2024, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang were searched for studies on the use of Jintiange/artificial tiger bone powder in osteoporosis treatment. Studies were selected based on predefined eligibility criteria. Outcome measures encompassed bone mineral density (BMD), pain scores, adverse event (AE), fracture incidence, serum calcium, and phosphorus concentrations, as well as bone resorption and formation markers.

Results: This study included 18 studies involving 21 trials on 2,580 patients (1,303 in the Jintiange group and 1,277 in the control group). A pooled analysis demonstrated that, in comparison to the control group, the Jintenge group achieved significantly greater improvements in BMD at various anatomical sites, including the lumbar spine (SMD = 0.52), femoral neck (SMD = 0.31), greater trochanter (SMD = 0.59), and Ward's triangle (SMD = 0.94). In addition, the Jintenge group exhibited a greater reduction in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores (SMD = -0.87). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of AEs or incidence of fractures. The level of bone Gla protein (BGP) was significantly higher in the Jintenge group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.28), whereas…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 2,580 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