MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

2011· review· en· W1493278628 on OpenAlexaff
Tracey Howe, Beverley Shea, Lesley Dawson, Fiona Downie, Ann Murray, C. Owen Ross, Robin Harbour, Lynn M. Caldwell, Gisela Creed

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryPhysical therapyOsteoporosisCINAHLMeta-analysisMEDLINERandomized controlled trialBone densityBone mineralPsychological interventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a condition resulting in an increased risk of skeletal fractures due to a reduction in the density of bone tissue. Treatment of osteoporosis typically involves the use of pharmacological agents. In general it is thought that disuse (prolonged periods of inactivity) and unloading of the skeleton promotes reduced bone mass, whereas mechanical loading through exercise increases bone mass. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of exercise interventions in preventing bone loss and fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: During the update of this review we updated the original search strategy by searching up to December 2010 the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010 Issue 12); MEDLINE; EMBASE; HealthSTAR; Sports Discus; CINAHL; PEDro; Web of Science; Controlled Clinical Trials; and AMED. We attempted to identify other studies by contacting experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that met our predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of members of the review team extracted the data and assessed trial quality using predetermined forms. For dichotomous outcomes (fractures), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) of the percentage change from baseline. Where heterogeneity existed (determined by the I(2) statistic), we used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three RCTs (27 new in this update) with 4320 participants met the inclusion criteria. The most effective type of exercise intervention on bone mineral density (BMD) for the neck of femur appears to be non-weight bearing high force exercise such as progressive resistance strength training for the lower limbs (MD 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.82). The most effective intervention for BMD at the spine was combination exercise programmes (MD 3.22; 95% CI 1.80 to 4.64) compared with control groups. Fractures and falls were reported as adverse events in some studies. There was no effect on numbers of fractures (odds ratio (OR) 0.61; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64). Overall, the quality of the reporting of studies in the meta-analyses was low, in particular in the areas of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and loss to follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a relatively small statistically significant, but possibly important, effect of exercise on bone density compared with control groups. Exercise has the potential to be a safe and effective way to avert bone loss in postmenopausal women.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,073
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207