Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of walking for preservation of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women

Open access
Martyn-St James, Marrissa, Carroll, Sean·2008·Bone

Abstract

Whilst exercise is recommended for optimum bone health in adult women, there are few systematic reviews of the efficacy of walking as singular exercise therapy for postmenopausal bone loss. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of prescribed walking programmes on bone mineral density (BMD) at the hip and spine in postmenopausal women and to determine if effects are modified by variations in protocol design. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials. Electronic bibliographic databases, key journals and reference lists of reviews and articles were searched to identify studies for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of walking on lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip BMD, measured by radiographic techniques, among sedentary postmenopausal women were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility. Reported absolute BMD outcomes were combined in the analysis. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using a fixed and random-effects models. Heterogeneity among trials was examined using the Q statistic and I2 methods. Potential publication bias was assessed through funnel plot inspection. Assessment of trial quality was also performed using the widely used instrument devised by Jadad et al. [Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Cont Clin Trials 1996; 17:1-12]. Eight trials were eligible for inclusion. Treatment duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. All eight trials reported BMD data at the lumbar spine following walking interventions among postmenopausal women. Meta-analysis showed no significant change in BMD at this site [WMD (fixed-effect) 0.007 g/cm2 95% CI (-0.001 to 0.016); P=0.09)]. BMD data at the femoral neck were available from five trials among postmenopausal women. Results were inconsistent (I2=51.4%) in showing a positive effect of walking on BMD at this site [WMD (random-effects) 0.014 g/cm2 95% CI (0.000 to 0.028); P=0.05). Insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of the total hip site. Funnel plots showed some asymmetry for negative lumbar spine BMD outcomes. Trial quality scores ranged from 0 to 3 from the Jadad scale of 0 to 5. We conclude that regular walking has no significant effect on preservation of BMD at the spine in postmenopausal women, whilst significant positive effects at femoral neck are evident. However, diverse methodological and reporting discrepancies are apparent in the published trials on which these conclusions are based. Other forms of exercise that provide greater targeted skeletal loading may be required to preserve bone mineral density in this population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bone.2008.05.012

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Martyn-St James, M., & Carroll, S.
Venue
Bone
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
521-531
ISSN
  • 1873-2763 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-3282
OpenAlex
W2169946156
Cited by
293
References
7
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.