Comparison 2. Aminobisphosphonates versus non‐aminobisphosphonates.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Mean change from baseline in pain	1		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
1.1 Risedronate vs. etidronate	1		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Number of participants who experienced adverse events related to use of bisphosphonates	2	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.72, 1.35]
2.1 Risedronate vs. etidronate	1	123	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.68, 1.43]
2.2 Alendronate vs. etidronate	1	89	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.55, 1.76]
3 Number of participants who withdrew due to adverse events	2	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.25, 1.89]
3.1 Risedronate vs. etidronate	1	123	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.22, 2.79]
3.2 Alendronate vs. etidronate	1	89	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.11, 2.90]
4 Mean percentage change from baseline in serum total alkaline phosphatase level	2	212	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐40.95 [‐49.09, ‐32.81]
4.1 Risedronate vs. etidronate	1	123	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐43.9 [‐48.06, ‐39.74]
4.2 Alendronate vs. etidronate	1	89	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐35.1 [‐45.85, ‐24.35]
5 Number of participants who achieved normalised alkaline phosphatase level	2	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.30 [2.72, 6.79]
5.1 Risedronate vs. etidronate	1	123	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.81 [2.58, 8.98]
5.2 Alendronate vs. etidronate	1	89	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.78 [1.93, 7.38]