Cummings 2008.
| Methods | Randomised placebo‐controlled trial | |
| Participants | 4538 women between 60 and 85 years of age (mean 68) who had bone mineral density T score ≤ −2.5 at the hip or lumbar spine or T score ≤ −2.0 with radiological evidence of vertebral fracture | |
| Interventions |
Administered for 34 months (median) |
|
| Outcomes | Vaginal bleeding, vaginal infection, endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia, breast cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism, mortality from any cause | |
| Notes | Timing: July 2001 to Feb 2006, when trial was stopped because increased risk of stroke was identified Location: Europe, the Americas Multi‐centre: 80 sites in 22 countries All participants received 2 to 4 tablets of calcium + vit D daily |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | No details on random generation of the allocation sequence, but use of an interactive voice response system should keep risk of selection bias very low |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Centralised interactive voice response system |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Placebo‐controlled and identical looking interventions |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Not specified, but given the nature of outcomes assessed, their evaluation is likely to be "objective" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 32 of 4538 participants not evaluated for not receiving any dose of the interventions under study |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study reported data on outcomes as indicated in the protocol. Additional data on vaginal bleeding, vaginal infection, endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia, breast cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism and mortality from any cause were available in the study publication and were included in this review |
| Conflict of interest | High risk | Financed by the drug manufacturer. Study authors have conflicts of interest |