MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236466893 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000333

Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

2002· review· en· W4236466893 on OpenAlexaff
Donatella Bonaiuti, Beverley Shea, Roberto Iovine, Stefano Négrini, Vivian Welch, Han HCG Kemper, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell, Ann Cranney

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryOsteoporosisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyMeta-analysisRelative riskBone densityInternal medicineConfidence interval

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. Prevention of osteoporotic-related fractures is dependent on the ability to detect individuals with low bone mass, including those women who are asymptomatic. Treatment of osteoporosis involves the use of either anti-resorptive (e.g. estrogen and bisphosphonate) or bone formation agents (e.g. fluoride and PTH). The value of exercise as an intervention for the prevention of postmenopausal bone loss is a controversial subject. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of exercise therapy at preventing bone loss and fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's specialised register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry up to January 2000 according to the methods suggested by Dickersin et al and Haynes et al and the Cochrane Handbook. We hand searched reference lists and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review was proceeded by a peer reviewed protocol published in the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently selected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which met our predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The same two reviewers abstracted the data using predetermined forms and assessed trial quality using a validated assessment tool. For dichotomous outcomes (fractures), relative risks were calculated using fixed effects models. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) of the percentage change from baseline were calculated. Where heterogeneity existed (determined by a chi square test), a random effects model was used. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. The trials had a mean methodological quality score of 2.53. Aerobics, weight bearing and resistance exercises were all effective on the BMD of the spine. The WMD for the combined aerobics and weight bearing program on the spine was 1.79 [95%CI (0.58, 3.01)]. The analyzed results showed walking to be effective on both BMD of the spine 1.31[95%CI (-0.03, 2.65) and the hip 0.92[95%CI (0.21, 1.64). Aerobic exercise was effective in increasing BMD of the wrist 1.22[95%CI (0.71, 1.74)]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Aerobics, weight bearing and resistance exercises are all effective in increasing the BMD of the spine in postmenopausal women. Walking is also effective on the hip. The quality of the reporting of the trials in the meta-analysis was low, in particular, in the areas of allocation concealement and blinding.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.376
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 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

Citations299
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207