-
Journal of Clinical Nursing Aug 2022To systematically review and compare the efficacy of different exercise interventions on bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm ) in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and compare the efficacy of different exercise interventions on bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm ) in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia.
BACKGROUND
It is vitally important to prevent and treat bone loss in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. Exercise can effectively increase bone density and slow down bone loss in middle-aged and older people. However, it is still unclear which type of exercise intervention is the most effective on bone mineral density.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) according to PRISMA.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials of different exercise treatments for osteopenia and primary osteoporosis were included. A Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to appraise the efficacy of different types of exercise. The outcome was bone mineral density of different parts of the body.
RESULTS
Ninety-seven studies were included. The network meta-analysis showed that combined exercise, resistance exercise, aerobic exercise and mind-body exercise had a significant effect in improving the bone density of lumbar spine. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values for mind-body exercise was 0.99 and ranked first. For BMD of the femoral neck, all kinds of exercise interventions increased the bone density significantly compared with no exercise and the optimal type was mind-body exercise (SUCRA = 0.99). In terms of the total hip bone mineral density, aerobic exercise and resistance exercise could improve hip bone density, with the resistance exercise (SUCRA = 0.95) ranking as first.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA demonstrated the mind-body exercise might be the optimal exercise type to increase the BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck and resistance exercise is the most promising type for total hip BMD.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Exercise; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 34725872
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16101 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.
PURPOSE
To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( ≥1000) for harms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).
LIMITATION
Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Aged; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Denosumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Fractures, Bone; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Physicians
PubMed: 36592455
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0684 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2023To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.
RESULTS
The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019128391.
Topics: Humans; Female; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Denosumab; Receptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Risk Reduction Behavior; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37130601
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068033 -
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 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jul 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was (1) to determine exercise effects on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women and (2) to address the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Exercise training and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies with emphasis on potential moderators.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was (1) to determine exercise effects on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women and (2) to address the corresponding implication of bone and menopausal status or supervision in postmenopausal women. A comprehensive search of eight electronic databases according to the PRISMA statement up to August 9, 2022, included controlled exercise trials ≥ 6 months. BMD changes (standardized mean differences: SMD) at the lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) were considered as outcomes. Study group comparisons were conducted for osteopenia/osteoporosis versus normal BMD, early versus late postmenopausal women, and predominantly supervised versus predominantly non-supervised study arms. We applied an inverse heterogeneity (IVhet) model. In summary, 80 studies involving 94 training and 80 control groups with a pooled number of 5581 participants were eligible. The IVhet model determined SMDs of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16-0.42), 0.27 (95% CI: 0.16-0.39), and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30-0.52) for LS, FN, and THBMD, respectively. Heterogeneity between the trial results varied from low (I = 20%, TH BMD) to substantial (I = 68%, LS-BMD). Evidence for publication bias/small study effects was negligibly low (FN-, TH-BMD) to high (LSBMD). We observed no significant differences (p > .09) for exercise effects on LS-, FN-, or TH-BMD-LS between studies/study arms with or without osteopenia/osteoporosis, early versus late postmenopausal women, or predominantly supervised versus non-supervised exercise programs. Using robust statistical methods, the present work provides further evidence for a positive effect of exercise on BMD in postmenopausal women. Differences in bone status (osteopenia/osteoporosis versus normal bone), menopausal status (early versus late postmenopausal), and supervision (yes versus no) did not significantly affect the exercise effects on BMD at LS or proximal femur.
Topics: Female; Humans; Bone Density; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Exercise; Osteoporosis; Femur Neck; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 36749350
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06682-1 -
BioMed Research International 2020Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and femoral neck in postmenopausal and premenopausal osteoporosis patients. We retrieved relevant literature and analyzed data from randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of swimming on BMD in postmenopausal and premenopausal women. Relevant studies, with no language restrictions, from inception to September 2019, were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases independently by two investigators. The keywords used for the literature search were "osteoporosis" and "swimming." The main results included BMD and -score. We searched 256 relevant articles and finally screened five articles, including 263 participants. Lumbar spine density was mentioned in three articles. Although the heterogeneity of lumbar vertebral density is moderate, the analysis of swimmers to nonswimmers shows that the lumbar vertebral density in swimmers is improved [heterogeneity: chi = 5.16, df = 2 ( = 0.08); = 61%]. We analyzed the following heterogeneous subgroups: subgroup 1 (3-6 hours) and subgroup 2 (<3 hours). The BMD in subgroup 1 was significantly higher than that in the placebo, while no effect on BMD was found in subgroup 2 [heterogeneity: chi = 0.15, df = 3 ( = 0.70); = 0%]. According to the current evidence, swimming may improve the BMD of postmenopausal women participants, if the swimming time is between 3 and 6 hours, especially in long-term swimmers. However, the effectiveness of swimming does require further investigation.
Topics: Adult; Bone Density; Exercise Therapy; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Premenopause; Swimming
PubMed: 32509864
DOI: 10.1155/2020/6210201 -
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2014Findings from recent meta-analyses of vitamin D supplementation without co-administration of calcium have not shown fracture prevention, possibly because of insufficient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Findings from recent meta-analyses of vitamin D supplementation without co-administration of calcium have not shown fracture prevention, possibly because of insufficient power or inappropriate doses, or because the intervention was not targeted to deficient populations. Despite these data, almost half of older adults (older than 50 years) continue to use these supplements. Bone mineral density can be used to detect biologically significant effects in much smaller cohorts. We investigated whether vitamin D supplementation affects bone mineral density.
METHODS
We searched Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Database, from inception to July 8, 2012, for trials assessing the effects of vitamin D (D3 or D2, but not vitamin D metabolites) on bone mineral density. We included all randomised trials comparing interventions that differed only in vitamin D content, and which included adults (average age >20 years) without other metabolic bone diseases. We pooled data with a random effects meta-analysis with weighted mean differences and 95% CIs reported. To assess heterogeneity in results of individual studies, we used Cochran's Q statistic and the I(2) statistic. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density from baseline.
FINDINGS
Of 3930 citations identified by the search strategy, 23 studies (mean duration 23·5 months, comprising 4082 participants, 92% women, average age 59 years) met the inclusion criteria. 19 studies had mainly white populations. Mean baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was less than 50 nmol/L in eight studies (n=1791). In ten studies (n=2294), individuals were given vitamin D doses less than 800 IU per day. Bone mineral density was measured at one to five sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, trochanter, total body, or forearm) in each study, so 70 tests of statistical significance were done across the studies. There were six findings of significant benefit, two of significant detriment, and the rest were non-significant. Only one study showed benefit at more than one site. Results of our meta-analysis showed a small benefit at the femoral neck (weighted mean difference 0·8%, 95% CI 0·2-1·4) with heterogeneity among trials (I(2)=67%, p<0·00027). No effect at any other site was reported, including the total hip. We recorded a bias toward positive results at the femoral neck and total hip.
INTERPRETATION
Continuing widespread use of vitamin D for osteoporosis prevention in community-dwelling adults without specific risk factors for vitamin D deficiency seems to be inappropriate.
FUNDING
Health Research Council of New Zealand.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Cholecalciferol; Dietary Supplements; Ergocalciferols; Female; Humans; Male; Osteoporosis; Vitamin D
PubMed: 24119980
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61647-5 -
BMC Geriatrics Jun 2023Osteosarcopenia is a syndrome with a concomitant presence of both sarcopenia and osteopenia/osteoporosis. It increases the risk of frailty, falls, fractures,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteosarcopenia is a syndrome with a concomitant presence of both sarcopenia and osteopenia/osteoporosis. It increases the risk of frailty, falls, fractures, hospitalization, and death. Not only does it burden the lives of older adults, but it also increases the economic burden on health systems around the world. This study aimed to review the prevalence and risk factors of osteosarcopenia to generate important references for clinical work in this area.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP databases were searched from inception until April 24th, 2022. The quality of studies included in the review was evaluated using the NOS and AHRQ Scale. Pooled effects of the prevalence and associated factors were calculated using random or fixed effects models. Egger's test, Begg's test, and funnel plots were used to test the publication bias. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 and Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies involving 15,062 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The prevalence of osteosarcopenia ranged from 1.5 to 65.7%, with an overall prevalence of 21% (95% CI: 0.16-0.26). The risk factors for osteosarcopenia were female (OR 5.10, 95% CI: 2.37-10.98), older age (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.21), and fracture (OR 2.92, 95% CI: 1.62-5.25).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of osteosarcopenia was high. Females, advanced age, and history of fracture were independently associated with osteosarcopenia. It is necessary to adopt integrated multidisciplinary management.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Prevalence; Osteoporosis; Fractures, Bone; Risk Factors; Sarcopenia
PubMed: 37322416
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04085-9 -
Medicine Feb 2020Primary osteoporosis (PO) is a common disease that was characterized by a systemic impairment of bone mass and microarchitecture that results in fragility fractures and...
Primary osteoporosis (PO) is a common disease that was characterized by a systemic impairment of bone mass and microarchitecture that results in fragility fractures and constitutes a pressing public health problem. But the effect of acupuncture or moxibustion treatment for PO is controversial.To provide a comprehensive systematic overview of current evidence from systematic reviews (SR)/Meta-analysis of acupuncture treatment for PO pertaining to risk of bias, quality of evidence and report quality.A total of 9 international and Chinese databases were searched for SR/meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias of SR/meta-analysis was appraised using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) instrument, the quality of the evidence was evaluated via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and the report quality of the included studies are estimated by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA).According to ROBIS, only 2 articles were with risk of low bias; according to PRISMA, and most articles were reported incomplete, mainly in Q2, Q7, Q24, and Q27; according to GRADE, a total of 28 outcome indicators were evaluated under 4 different interventions of experimental group and control group: the evidence quality of bone mineral density (BMD) from treatment of acupuncture and moxibustion/acupuncture and moxibustion plus was high or moderate; Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of acupuncture plus moxibustion or acupuncture plus moxibustion plus other was low or very low; clinical effectiveness of acupuncture plus moxibustion or acupuncture plus moxibustion plus other was uncertain.Acupuncture and moxibustion can improve the BMD of PO patients according to high-quality evidence, and may benefit VAS, pain score, clinical efficacy based on moderate or low-quality evidence. Further research that provides higher quality evidence of SR/RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion treatment for PO is required.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Moxibustion; Osteoporosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32118767
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019334 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Feb 2024Osteosarcopenia is defined as the concurrent occurrence of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Osteosarcopenia is defined as the concurrent occurrence of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the global prevalence, risk factors and clinical outcomes of osteosarcopenia. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022351229). PubMed, Cochrane, Medline and Embase were searched from inception to February 2023 to retrieve eligible observational population-based studies. Pooled osteosarcopenia prevalence was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI), and subgroup analyses were performed. The risk factor of osteosarcopenia and its association with clinical outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR), respectively. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I test. Study quality was assessed using validated instruments matched to study designs. The search identified 55 158 studies, and 66 studies (64 404 participants, mean age from 46.6 to 93 years) were analysed in the final analysis, including 48 cross-sectional studies, 17 cohort studies and 1 case-control study. Overall, the pooled prevalence of osteosarcopenia was 18.5% (95% CI: 16.7-20.3, I = 98.7%), including 15.3% (95% CI: 13.2-17.4, I = 97.6%) in men and 19.4% (95% CI: 16.9-21.9, I = 98.5%) in women. The prevalence of osteosarcopenia diagnosed using sarcopenia plus osteopenia/osteoporosis was 20.7% (95% CI: 17.1-24.4, I = 98.55%), and the prevalence of using sarcopenia plus osteoporosis was 16.1% (95% CI: 13.3-18.9, I = 98.0%). The global osteosarcopenia prevalence varied in different regions with 22.9% in Oceania, 21.6% in Asia, 20.8% in South America, 15.7% in North America and 10.9% in Europe. A statistically significant difference was found in the subgroups of the study population between the hospital (24.7%) and community (12.9%) (P = 0.001). Frailty (OR = 4.72, 95% CI: 2.71-8.23, I = 61.1%), malnutrition (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.62-3.40, I = 50.0%), female sex (OR = 5.07, 95% CI: 2.96-8.69, I = 73.0%) and higher age (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.15, I ==86.0%) were significantly associated with a higher risk for osteosarcopenia. Meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that osteosarcopenia significantly increased the risk of fall (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.20-1.97; I = 1.0%, three studies), fracture (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.61-2.81; I = 67.8%, seven studies) and mortality (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.34-2.28; I = 0.0%, five studies). Despite the heterogeneity arising from varied definitions and criteria, our findings highlight a significant global prevalence of osteosarcopenia and its negative impact on clinical health. Standardizing diagnostic criteria for osteosarcopenia would be advantageous in the future, and early detection and management should be emphasized in this patient population.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Sarcopenia; Cross-Sectional Studies; Case-Control Studies; Osteoporosis; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 38086772
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13392