Natural Health Products in the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumers are increasingly looking to natural health products to manage specific diseases such as osteoporosis. As a result, healthcare providers need evidence-based information on which to base recommendations regarding use and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify natural health products (NHPs, ie, dietary supplements) advocated for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials for the effect of NHPs on bone mineral density (BMD)/fracture rate in women. METHODS: MEDLINE, Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, and the Internet were initially searched to identify NHPs advocated for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. For NHPs having evidence to support their claim, the aforementioned sources, along with International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the Cochrane Library, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health, and HerbMed, were searched to locate randomized controlled trials published in English between 1966 and October 2004. Bibliographies of identified articles were also searched. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they evaluated the use of a single NHP in women, using BMD/fracture rate as the outcome measure. NHPs were excluded from further evaluation if a review had already been published. Data were extracted using predetermined criteria and studies appraised using the Jadad scale. Forty-five NHPs were identified that the authors claimed to be beneficial in prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, with 15 having evidence to support their claim. Calcium; copper; evening primrose oil; fish oils; fluoride; magnesium; manganese; strontium; vitamin D; and black, green, and oolong tea did not meet study criteria. RESULTS: Results from randomized controlled trials evaluating dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), phytoestrogens, and vitamin K2 (menaquinone or menatetrenone) were promising; however, study limitations suggest the need for confirmatory evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn, the relative safety of phytoestrogens, DHEA, and vitamin K2 at the studied doses, as well as preliminary positive results from randomized controlled trials, provides some initial support for the use of these NHPs in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".