MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913109643 · doi:10.22038/ijogi.2019.13205

The correlation of number of parity and bone mineral density (BMD) in women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2913109643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz, Farzaneh Rashidi Fakari, Vida Ghasemi, Zahra Kiani, Giti Ozgoli

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotBone mineralParity (physics)MedicineMeta-analysisPublication biasScopusWeb of scienceMathematicsInternal medicineDentistryMEDLINEChemistryPhysicsOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Osteoporosis is a major health problem in women throughout the world. Based on the available evidence, delivery can play an important role in women's bone mineral density. Therefore, this study was performed with aim to determine the correlation between parity and bone mineral density through systematic review and. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, for finding the related articles, the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochran library and Web of Science databases were searched without time limitation and with English language restriction by using of the keywords of Parity and Bone Mineral Density (BMD) or Bone Mineral Content or bone density. The adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the cross-sectional articles. Funnel plot and Egger's test was used for publication bias assessing. Q-test and I2 index were used for evaluation of heterogeneity. Fisher’s 𝑟-to-𝑧 transformation was calculated for the studies. Results: In this study, a total of 1336 papers were reviewed and 11 studies involving 5141 women were included in this meta-analysis. The decreasing trend in lumbar spine, femur and total hip BMD was observed in women with parity ≥5 compared to non-parity women. In nulliparous women, the mean of BMD in lumbar spine was (M:0.93 ,95%CI;0.75-1.11, Phetrogeneity <0.001), in femur (M:0.84 95%CI;0.60-1.09, Phetrogeneity <0.001) and in hip (M:0.86, 95%CI;0.84-0.89, Phetrogeneity =0.001). The mean of BMD in postmenopausal women was lower in lumbar, femur and hip. In African women, the mean of BMD in three sites were higher. There was no reverse moderate correlation between parity and lumbar BMD -0.22 (95% CI -0.14, -0.30) and hip BMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.12, -0.29). Conclusion: The mean BMD was higher in nulliparous women. There was inverse correlation between lumbar BMD and hip BMD with parity, but because of high heterogeneity in analyzed subgroups, performing cohort studies is recommended.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207