-
JAMA Network Open Dec 2021With the global population aging, falls and fall-related injuries are ubiquitous, and several clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for...
IMPORTANCE
With the global population aging, falls and fall-related injuries are ubiquitous, and several clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for individuals 60 years or older have been developed. A systematic evaluation of the recommendations and agreement level is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for adults 60 years or older in all settings (eg, community, acute care, and nursing homes), evaluate agreement in recommendations, and identify potential gaps.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement methods for clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults was conducted (updated July 1, 2021) using MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Epistemonikos databases. Medical Subject Headings search terms were related to falls, clinical practice guidelines, management and prevention, and older adults, with no restrictions on date, language, or setting for inclusion. Three independent reviewers selected records for full-text examination if they followed evidence- and consensus-based processes and assessed the quality of the guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II) criteria. The strength of the recommendations was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scores, and agreement across topic areas was assessed using the Fleiss κ statistic.
FINDINGS
Of 11 414 records identified, 159 were fully reviewed and assessed for eligibility, and 15 were included. All 15 selected guidelines had high-quality AGREE-II total scores (mean [SD], 80.1% [5.6%]), although individual quality domain scores for clinical applicability (mean [SD], 63.4% [11.4%]) and stakeholder (clinicians, patients, or caregivers) involvement (mean [SD], 76.3% [9.0%]) were lower. A total of 198 recommendations covering 16 topic areas in 15 guidelines were identified after screening 4767 abstracts that proceeded to 159 full texts. Most (≥11) guidelines strongly recommended performing risk stratification, assessment tests for gait and balance, fracture and osteoporosis management, multifactorial interventions, medication review, exercise promotion, environment modification, vision and footwear correction, referral to physiotherapy, and cardiovascular interventions. The strengths of the recommendations were inconsistent for vitamin D supplementation, addressing cognitive factors, and falls prevention education. Recommendations on use of hip protectors and digital technology or wearables were often missing. None of the examined guidelines included a patient or caregiver panel in their deliberations.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review found that current clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults showed a high degree of agreement in several areas in which strong recommendations were made, whereas other topic areas did not achieve this level of consensus or coverage. Future guidelines should address clinical applicability of their recommendations and include perspectives of patients and other stakeholders.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Combined Modality Therapy; Consensus; Environment Design; Health Promotion; Health Services for the Aged; Humans; Medication Review; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Physical Therapy Modalities; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 34910151
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38911 -
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 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jan 2022The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures significantly. In addition, decreased incidence of falls and increased bone mineral density at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck was observed. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts against the sclerostin pathway leading to enhanced bone formation and reduced bone resorption in patients with osteoporosis. Electronic search was performed on Medline (via PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov, till May 2020, for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis. RCTs evaluating the effect of Romosozumab on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Meta-analysis was performed by Cochrane review manager 5 (RevMan) version 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and GRADE pro-GDT were applied for methodological quality and overall evidence quality, respectively. One hundred seventy-nine studies were screened, and 10 eligible studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 6137 patients in romosozumab group and 5732 patients in control group. Romosozumab significantly reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures [OR = 0.43 (95%CI = 0.35-0.52), High-quality evidence], nonvertebral fractures [OR = 0.78 (95%CI = 0.66-0.92), High quality], and clinical fractures [OR = 0.70 (95%CI = 0.60-0.82), High quality] at 24 months. Significant reduction in incidence risk of falls [OR = 0.87 (95%CI = 0.78-0.96), High quality] was observed with romosozumab. Bone mineral density was significantly increased in the romosozumab treated groups at lumbar spine [MD = 12.66 (95%CI = 12.66-12.67), High quality], total hip [MD = 5.69 (95%CI = 5.68 - 5.69), Moderate quality], and femoral neck [MD = 5.18 (95%CI = 5.18-5.19), Moderate quality] at 12 months. The total adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.96-1.01), Moderate quality] and serious adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.88-1.08), Moderate quality] with romosozumab were comparable to the control group. The current analysis with evidence on efficacy and safety of Romosozumab, authors opine to recommend the use of Romosozumab treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019112196.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 34432115
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06095-y -
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 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Jan 2015This work provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of... (Review)
Review
This work provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and offers recommendations for its management based on multidisciplinary international consensus. ONJ is associated with oncology-dose parenteral antiresorptive therapy of bisphosphonates (BP) and denosumab (Dmab). The incidence of ONJ is greatest in the oncology patient population (1% to 15%), where high doses of these medications are used at frequent intervals. In the osteoporosis patient population, the incidence of ONJ is estimated at 0.001% to 0.01%, marginally higher than the incidence in the general population (<0.001%). New insights into the pathophysiology of ONJ include antiresorptive effects of BPs and Dmab, effects of BPs on gamma delta T-cells and on monocyte and macrophage function, as well as the role of local bacterial infection, inflammation, and necrosis. Advances in imaging include the use of cone beam computerized tomography assessing cortical and cancellous architecture with lower radiation exposure, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scanning, and positron emission tomography, although plain films often suffice. Other risk factors for ONJ include glucocorticoid use, maxillary or mandibular bone surgery, poor oral hygiene, chronic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, ill-fitting dentures, as well as other drugs, including antiangiogenic agents. Prevention strategies for ONJ include elimination or stabilization of oral disease prior to initiation of antiresorptive agents, as well as maintenance of good oral hygiene. In those patients at high risk for the development of ONJ, including cancer patients receiving high-dose BP or Dmab therapy, consideration should be given to withholding antiresorptive therapy following extensive oral surgery until the surgical site heals with mature mucosal coverage. Management of ONJ is based on the stage of the disease, size of the lesions, and the presence of contributing drug therapy and comorbidity. Conservative therapy includes topical antibiotic oral rinses and systemic antibiotic therapy. Localized surgical debridement is indicated in advanced nonresponsive disease and has been successful. Early data have suggested enhanced osseous wound healing with teriparatide in those without contraindications for its use. Experimental therapy includes bone marrow stem cell intralesional transplantation, low-level laser therapy, local platelet-derived growth factor application, hyperbaric oxygen, and tissue grafting.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bacterial Infections; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Consensus; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Macrophages; Mandible; Monocytes; Osteoporosis; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, gamma-delta; Risk Factors; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 25414052
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2405 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Jun 2017: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain skeletal health in adult life. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of dietary protein intake alone and with calcium with or without vitamin D (Ca±D) on bone health measures in adults. Searches across 5 databases were conducted through October 2016 including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies examining ) the effects of "high versus low" protein intake or ) dietary protein's synergistic effect with Ca±D intake on bone health outcomes. Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments. Strength of evidence was rated by group consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses for outcomes with ≥4 RCTs were performed. Sixteen RCTs and 20 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Overall ROB was medium. Moderate evidence suggested that higher protein intake may have a protective effect on lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) compared with lower protein intake (net percentage change: 0.52%; 95% CI: 0.06%, 0.97%, : 0%; = 5) but no effect on total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), or total body BMD or bone biomarkers. Limited evidence did not support an effect of protein with Ca±D on LS BMD, TH BMD, or forearm fractures; there was insufficient evidence for FN BMD and overall fractures. Current evidence shows no adverse effects of higher protein intakes. Although there were positive trends on BMD at most bone sites, only the LS showed moderate evidence to support benefits of higher protein intake. Studies were heterogeneous, and confounding could not be excluded. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify dietary protein's role in bone health. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk as CRD42015017751.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium; Calcium, Dietary; Dietary Proteins; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Osteoporosis; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28404575
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.116.145110 -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2017While corticosteroids are relatively inexpensive and commonly used as treatment for a variety of conditions, long-term use is known to be associated with certain... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
While corticosteroids are relatively inexpensive and commonly used as treatment for a variety of conditions, long-term use is known to be associated with certain toxicities. Prior systematic reviews have revealed an increased risk for costly adverse events (AEs), including bone fracture, infection, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of recent publications on the burden of long-term corticosteroid exposure, specifically, to summarize the AEs and economic impact of long-term corticosteroid use and to reveal data gaps for additional research.
METHODS
The Ovid search platform was used to access scientific literature databases. The search strategy targeted the use of corticosteroids and economic outcomes research. Articles were restricted to those published between 2007 and 2016 to cover publications since prior reviews; conference abstracts and articles assessing pediatrics were excluded. Titles and abstracts resulting from inclusion criteria were screened, and reviewers independently extracted relevant information from the relevant full-text articles.
FINDINGS
The literature review included 32 articles, with 75% focusing on autoimmune diseases, asthma, or lung diseases. Included articles were 14 database analyses, 6 simulations, 6 clinical trials, 3 systematic literature reviews, 2 patient surveys, and 1 chart review. Commonly-cited AEs associated with long-term corticosteroid exposure included hypertension (prevalence >30%); bone fracture (21%-30%); cataract (1%-3%); nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal conditions (1%-5%); and metabolic issues (eg, weight gain, hyperglycemia, and type 2 diabetes; cases had 4-fold the risk of controls). Association of dose and duration with increased AE risk is not well-quantified. AEs like peptic ulcer and myocardial infarction are particularly costly to payers (1-year cost of $21,825 and $26,472, respectively, in year-2009 USD). The few articles assessing the economic impact of corticosteroid use have found dose-related increases in health care resource utilization and costs, with per-annum incremental costs relative to nonusers ranging from $5700 in low-dose users (<7.5 mg/d) to $29,000 in high-dose users (>15 mg/d). Adherence to treatment guidelines on avoiding AEs (eg, prescribing of oral bisphosphonates, calcium, and vitamin D) remains low.
IMPLICATIONS
Although doses of long-term corticosteroids have fallen over the past several decades in response to AEs, dose reduction may not be a sufficient solution. Numerous AEs, some very costly, persist among long-term corticosteroid users, suggesting a need for further research to fill current data gaps, as well as a potential need for alternative treatment options.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Costs and Cost Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Time Factors
PubMed: 29055500
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.09.011 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Dec 2015To evaluate the effect of breastfeeding on long-term (breast carcinoma, ovarian carcinoma, osteoporosis and type 2 diabetes mellitus) and short-term (lactational... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate the effect of breastfeeding on long-term (breast carcinoma, ovarian carcinoma, osteoporosis and type 2 diabetes mellitus) and short-term (lactational amenorrhoea, postpartum depression, postpartum weight change) maternal health outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library and CABI databases. Outcome estimates of odds ratios or relative risks or standardised mean differences were pooled. In cases of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were explored.
RESULTS
Breastfeeding >12 months was associated with reduced risk of breast and ovarian carcinoma by 26% and 37%, respectively. No conclusive evidence of an association between breastfeeding and bone mineral density was found. Breastfeeding was associated with 32% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. Exclusive breastfeeding and predominant breastfeeding were associated with longer duration of amenorrhoea. Shorter duration of breastfeeding was associated with higher risk of postpartum depression. Evidence suggesting an association of breastfeeding with postpartum weight change was lacking.
CONCLUSION
This review supports the hypothesis that breastfeeding is protective against breast and ovarian carcinoma, and exclusive breastfeeding and predominant breastfeeding increase the duration of lactational amenorrhoea. There is evidence that breastfeeding reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, an association between breastfeeding and bone mineral density or maternal depression or postpartum weight change was not evident.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amenorrhea; Breast Feeding; Breast Neoplasms; Depression, Postpartum; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Humans; Lactation; Maternal Health; Osteoporosis; Ovarian Neoplasms; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 26172878
DOI: 10.1111/apa.13102 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Oct 2021Osteoporosis affects all sections of society, including families with people affected by osteoporosis, government agencies and medical institutes in various fields. For... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis affects all sections of society, including families with people affected by osteoporosis, government agencies and medical institutes in various fields. For example, it involves the patient and his/her family members, and government agencies in terms of the cost of treatment and medical care. Providing a comprehensive picture of the prevalence of osteoporosis globally is important for health policymakers to make appropriate decisions. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the prevalence of osteoporosis worldwide.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Magiran, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time limit up till 26 August 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using the I test, and the publication bias was assessed by the Begg and Mazumdar's test at the significance level of 0.1.
RESULTS
After following the systematic review processes, 86 studies were selected for meta-analysis. The sample size of the study was 103,334,579 people in the age range of 15-105 years. Using meta-analysis, the prevalence of osteoporosis in the world was reported to be 18.3 (95% CI 16.2-20.7). Based on 70 studies and sample size of 800,457 women, and heterogenicity I: 99.8, the prevalence of osteoporosis in women of the world was reported to be 23.1 (95% CI 19.8-26.9), while the prevalence of osteoporosis among men of the world was found to be 11.7 (95% CI 9.6-14.1 which was based on 40 studies and sample size of 453,964 men.). The highest prevalence of osteoporosis was reported in Africa with 39.5% (95% CI 22.3-59.7) and a sample size of 2989 people with the age range 18-95 years.
CONCLUSION
According to the medical, economic, and social burden of osteoporosis, providing a robust and comprehensive estimate of the prevalence of osteoporosis in the world can facilitate decisions in health system planning and policymaking, including an overview of the current and outlook for the future; provide the necessary facilities for the treatment of people with osteoporosis; reduce the severe risks that lead to death by preventing fractures; and, finally, monitor the overall state of osteoporosis in the world. This study is the first to report a structured review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of osteoporosis worldwide.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 34657598
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02772-0 -
Calcified Tissue International Nov 2020In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) intervention ≥ 6 months, (d) BMD assessments at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN) or total hip (TH), (e) in postmenopausal women. Eight electronic databases were scanned without language restrictions up to March 2019. The present subgroup analysis was conducted as a mixed-effect meta-analysis with "type of exercise" as the moderator. The 84 eligible exercise groups were classified into (a) weight bearing (WB, n = 30) exercise, (b) (dynamic) resistance exercise (DRT, n = 18), (c) mixed WB&DRT interventions (n = 36). Outcome measures were standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD-changes at LS, FN and TH. All types of exercise significantly affect BMD at LS, FN and TH. SMD for LS average 0.40 (95% CI 0.15-0.65) for DRT, SMD 0.26 (0.03-0.49) for WB and SMD 0.42 (0.23-0.61) for WB&DRT. SMD for FN were 0.27 (0.09-0.45) for DRT, 0.37 (0.12-0.62) for WB and 0.35 (0.19-0.51) for WB&DRT. Lastly, SMD for TH changes were 0.51 (0.28-0.74) for DRT, 0.40 (0.21-0.58) for WB and 0.34 (0.14-0.53) for WB&DRT. In summary, we provided further evidence for the favorable effect of exercise on BMD largely independent of the type of exercise. However, in order to generate dedicated exercise recommendations or exercise guideline, meta-analyses might be a too rough tool.
Topics: Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Resistance Training; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 32785775
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-020-00744-w