MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

2011· review· en· W1493278628 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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