Barreira 2009.

Methods	RCT. Randomisation ratio: 1:2 (pamidronate: olpadronate). Superiority design
Participants	Diagnostic criteria: Not stated. Inclusion criteria: active Paget's disease of bone despite previous therapies. Exclusion criteria: not stated. Number screened: not stated. Number randomised: 27. Number analysed: 21 (age and sex not stated; percentages monostotic, symptomatic and previously treated for Paget's disease of bone were not stated)
Interventions	Two parallel treatment groups; pamidronate 400 mg/day for 4 months vs. olpadronate 200 mg/day for 12 days. Co‐interventions: Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported in abstract Primary endpoint: Mean percentage change from baseline in serum total alkaline phosphatase activity. Secondary endpoints: Number of participants who experienced adverse events related to use of bisphosphonates. Time points for measurement: 6 months. How were the outcomes were measured: Insufficient information. Likely prospectively
Setting and date	Multicentre; Argentina. Period when the study was conducted: Not stated
Follow up period	6 months
Publication details and funding source	Language of publication: English. Publication status: conference abstracts only. Funding source: Not stated. Declarations of interest among primary researchers: Not stated
Notes	Data only from abstracts
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomized in a 1:2 schedule." Randomisation method not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Both formulations were double dummy with placebos" Comment: Probably done.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement. Only an abstract of the trials was published. Many data were lacking; there were no data on attrition, exclusions or adverse events
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient reporting to permit judgement. Methods and results sections were poorly described. It was not possible to assess if they were consistent. We did not have access to a trial register record or study protocol to know if there was a prespecified record of the studies outcomes
Other bias	Unclear risk	There were no data on exposure to co‐interventions other than bisphosphonates. No other risks of bias found, but reporting was insufficient to permit judgement.