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 OpenAlex
Donatella Bonaiuti, Beverley Shea, Roberto Iovine, Stefano Négrini, Vivian Welch, Han HCG Kemper, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell, Ann Cranney

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 · 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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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

Quick stats

Citations299
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207