-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2022Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36183671
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Oct 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis. Prevalence varied greatly according to countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis. Prevalence varied greatly according to countries (from 4.1% in Netherlands to 52.0% in Turkey) and continents (from 8.0% in Oceania to 26.9% in Africa). Osteoporosis is a common metabolic bone disorder in the elderly, usually resulting in bone pain and an increased risk of fragility fracture, but few summarized studies have guided global strategies for the disease. Therefore, we pooled the epidemiologic data to estimate the global, regional prevalence, and potential risk factors of osteoporosis. We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus, to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of osteoporosis based on the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021285555). Of the 57,933 citations evaluated, 108 individual studies containing 343,704 subjects were included. The global prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia was 19.7% (95%CI, 18.0%-21.4%) and 40.4% (95%CI, 36.9%-43.8%). Prevalence varied greatly according to countries (from 4.1% in Netherlands to 52.0% in Turkey) and continents (from Oceania 8.0% to 26.9% in Africa). The prevalence was higher in developing countries (22.1%, 95%CI, 20.1%-24.1%) than in developed countries (14.5%, 95%CI, 11.5%-17.7%). Our study indicates a considerable prevalence of osteoporosis among the general population based on WHO criteria, and the prevalence varies substantially between countries and regions. Future studies with robust evidence are required to explore risk factors to provide effective preventive strategies for the disease.
Topics: Aged; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Global Health; Humans; Osteoporosis; Prevalence; Risk Factors; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35687123
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06454-3 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2019Vitamin D and calcium supplements are recommended for the prevention of fracture, but previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results, with... (Review)
Review Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Vitamin D and calcium supplements are recommended for the prevention of fracture, but previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results, with uncertainty about optimal doses and regimens for supplementation and their overall effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the risks of fracture associated with differences in concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) in observational studies and the risks of fracture associated with supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium in RCTs.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other RCT databases were searched from database inception until December 31, 2018. Searches were performed between July 2018 and December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies involving at least 200 fracture cases and RCTs enrolling at least 500 participants and reporting at least 10 incident fractures were included. Randomized clinical trials compared vitamin D or vitamin D and calcium with control.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed possible bias. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Data extraction and synthesis took place between July 2018 and June 2019.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Any fracture and hip fracture.
RESULTS
In a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies (39 141 participants, 6278 fractures, 2367 hip fractures), each increase of 10.0 ng/mL (ie, 25 nmol/L) in 25 (OH)D concentration was associated with an adjusted RR for any fracture of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and an adjusted RR for hip fracture of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). A meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (34 243 participants, 2843 fractures, 740 hip fractures) of vitamin D supplementation alone (daily or intermittent dose of 400-30 000 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 8.4 ng/mL) did not find a reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.14) or hip fracture (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.32), but these trials were constrained by infrequent intermittent dosing, low daily doses of vitamin D, or an inadequate number of participants. In contrast, a meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (49 282 participants, 5449 fractures, 730 hip fractures) of combined supplementation with vitamin D (daily doses of 400-800 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 9.2 ng/mL) and calcium (daily doses of 1000-1200 mg) found a 6% reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and a 16% reduced risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, neither intermittent nor daily dosing with standard doses of vitamin D alone was associated with reduced risk of fracture, but daily supplementation with both vitamin D and calcium was a more promising strategy.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone and Bones; Calcitriol; Dietary Supplements; Fractures, Bone; Hip Fractures; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin D
PubMed: 31860103
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789 -
Nutrients Dec 2020The rise in obesity has emphasised a focus on lifestyle and dietary habits. We aimed to address the debate between low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets and compare their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The rise in obesity has emphasised a focus on lifestyle and dietary habits. We aimed to address the debate between low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets and compare their effects on body weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol, and triglycerides in an adult population.
METHOD
Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets up to September 2019. Three independent reviewers extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The meta-analysis was stratified by follow-up time using the random-effects models.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis of 38 studies assessed a total of 6499 adults. At 6-12 months, pooled analyses of mean differences of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat diets favoured the low-carbohydrate diet for average weight change (mean difference -1.30 kg; 95% CI -2.02 to -0.57), HDL (0.05 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08), and triglycerides (TG) (-0.10 mmol/L; -0.16 to -0.04), and favoured the low-fat diet for LDL (0.07 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12) and total cholesterol (0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.18). Conclusion and Relevance: This meta-analysis suggests that low-carbohydrate diets are effective at improving weight loss, HDL and TG lipid profiles. However, this must be balanced with potential consequences of raised LDL and total cholesterol in the long-term.
Topics: Adult; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Diet, Fat-Restricted; Humans; Lipids; Triglycerides; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33317019
DOI: 10.3390/nu12123774 -
BMJ Open Jun 2016It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.
SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES
We sought PubMed for cohort studies, where LDL-C had been investigated as a risk factor for all-cause and/or CV mortality in individuals ≥60 years from the general population.
RESULTS
We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68 094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing 92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no association was found.
CONCLUSIONS
High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.
Topics: Aged; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Humans; Middle Aged; Mortality; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27292972
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010401 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
BACKGROUND
Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.
DATA SOURCES
For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.
RESULTS
Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.
LIMITATIONS
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Teriparatide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32588816
DOI: 10.3310/hta24290 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Aug 2017To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long-term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long-term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long-term GC users.
RESULTS
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate-to-high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment, are also made.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium, Dietary; Consensus; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Rheumatic Diseases; Rheumatology; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide; United States; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28585373
DOI: 10.1002/art.40137 -
Nutrients Aug 2020Although a cholesterol-lowering diet and the addition of plant sterols and stanols are suggested for the lipid management of children and adults with familial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although a cholesterol-lowering diet and the addition of plant sterols and stanols are suggested for the lipid management of children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia, there is limited evidence evaluating such interventions in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the impact of cholesterol-lowering diet and other dietary interventions on the incidence or mortality of cardiovascular disease and lipid profile of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant trials were identified by searching US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Metabolism Trials Register and clinicaltrials.gov.gr using the following terms: diet, dietary, plant sterols, stanols, omega-3 fatty acids, fiber and familial hypercholesterolemia.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of cholesterol-lowering diet or other dietary interventions in children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the included trials and their bias risk and extracted the data which was independently verified by other colleagues.
RESULTS
A total of 17 trials were finally included, with a total of 376 participants across 8 comparison groups. The included trials had either a low or unclear bias risk for most of the assessed risk parameters. Cardiovascular incidence or mortality were not evaluated in any of the included trials. Among the planned comparisons regarding patients' lipidemic profile, a significant difference was noticed for the following comparisons and outcomes: omega-3 fatty acids reduced triglycerides (mean difference (MD): -0.27 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.47 to -0.07, < 0.01) when compared with placebo. A non-significant trend towards a reduction in subjects' total cholesterol (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.68 to 0, mmol/L, = 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD: -0.31, 95% CI: -0.61 to 0, mmol/L, = 0.05) was noticed. In comparison with cholesterol-lowering diet, the additional consumption of plant stanols decreased total cholesterol (MD: -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.13 to -0.11, = 0.02) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD: -0.58 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.09, = 0.02). The same was by plant sterols (MD: -0.46 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.17, < 0.01 for cholesterol and MD: -0.45 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.16, < 0.01 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). No heterogeneity was noticed among the studies included in these analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Available trials confirm that the addition of plant sterols or stanols has a cholesterol-lowering effect on such individuals. On the other hand, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids effectively reduces triglycerides and might have a role in lowering the cholesterol of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Additional studies are needed to investigate the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering diet or the addition of soya protein and dietary fibers to a cholesterol-lowering diet in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.
Topics: Adult; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Child; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diet; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II; Male; Phytosterols; Triglycerides
PubMed: 32823643
DOI: 10.3390/nu12082436 -
Nutrients Jan 2021Calcium supplementation and fortification are strategies widely used to prevent adverse outcome in population with low-calcium intake which is highly frequent in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Calcium supplementation and fortification are strategies widely used to prevent adverse outcome in population with low-calcium intake which is highly frequent in low-income settings. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of calcium fortified foods on calcium intake and related health, or economic outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis involving participants of any age or gender, drawn from the general population. We searched PubMed, Agricola, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, EconLit, the FAO website and Google until June 2019, without language restrictions. Pair of reviewers independently selected, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Covidence software. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed meta-analyses using RevMan 5.4 and subgroup analyses by study design, age group, and fortification levels. We included 20 studies of which 15 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were non-randomised studies and two were economic evaluations. Most RCTs had high risk of bias on randomization or blinding. Most represented groups were women and children from 1 to 72 months, most common intervention vehicles were milk and bakery products with a fortification levels between 96 and 1200 mg per 100 g of food. Calcium intake increased in the intervention groups between 460 mg (children) and 1200 mg (postmenopausal women). Most marked effects were seen in children. Compared to controls, height increased 0.83 cm (95% CI 0.00; 1.65), plasma parathyroid hormone decreased -1.51 pmol/L, (-2.37; -0.65), urine:calcium creatinine ratio decreased -0.05, (-0.07; -0.03), femoral neck and hip bone mineral density increased 0.02 g/cm (0.01; 0.04) and 0.03 g/cm (0.00; 0.06), respectively. The largest cost savings (43%) reported from calcium fortification programs came from prevented hip fractures in older women from Germany. Our study highlights that calcium fortification leads to a higher calcium intake, small benefits in children's height and bone health and also important evidence gaps for other outcomes and populations that could be solved with high quality experimental or quasi-experimental studies in relevant groups, especially as some evidence of calcium supplementation show controversial results on the bone health benefit on older adults.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Calcium; Calcium, Dietary; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Food, Fortified; Hip Fractures; Humans; Infant; Male
PubMed: 33499250
DOI: 10.3390/nu13020316 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Feb 2018To determine if the combination of aerobic and resistance exercise is superior to aerobic exercise alone for the health of obese children and adolescents. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine if the combination of aerobic and resistance exercise is superior to aerobic exercise alone for the health of obese children and adolescents.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Computerised search of 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Studies that compared the effect of supervised concurrent exercise versus aerobic exercise interventions, with anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in paediatric obesity (6-18 years old). The mean differences (MD) of the parameters from preintervention to postintervention between groups were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
12 trials with 555 youths were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with aerobic exercise alone, concurrent exercise resulted in greater reductions in body mass (MD=-2.28 kg), fat mass (MD=-3.49%; and MD=-4.34 kg) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD=-10.20 mg/dL); as well as greater increases in lean body mass (MD=2.20 kg) and adiponectin level (MD=2.59 μg/mL). Differences were larger for longer term programmes (>24 weeks).
SUMMARY
Concurrent aerobic plus resistance exercise improves body composition, metabolic profiles, and inflammatory state in the obese paediatric population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016039807.
Topics: Adiponectin; Adiposity; Adolescent; Body Mass Index; Child; Cholesterol, LDL; Exercise; Humans; Pediatric Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 27986760
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096605