Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effect of two randomised exercise programmes on bone mass of healthy postmenopausal women.

Open access
Chow, R, Harrison, J E, Notarius, C·1987·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.295.6611.1441
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The effect of two structured exercise programmes on the bone mass of 48 healthy postmenopausal white women aged 50-62 was studied after one year. Volunteers were randomised to group 1 (control), group 2 (aerobic exercise), or group 3 (aerobic and strengthening exercises). Before and after the training programme each subject had evaluations of bone mass (determined by neutron activation analysis and expressed as calcium bone index) and maximum oxygen uptake attained on a multistage exercise treadmill test. After one year both exercise groups had higher levels of fitness and greater bone mass than controls. Mean values (2 SEM) for changes in the calcium bone index were -0.011 (0.037), 0.039 (0.035), and 0.066 (0.036) for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Analysis of variance on the observed data and analysis of covariance adjusting changes to the initial mean value for the whole group showed significant differences between each exercise group and the controls but no difference between the exercise groups themselves. Both exercise groups showed a significant improvement in maximum oxygen uptake. This study suggests that exercise may modify bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.295.6611.1441

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chow, R., Harrison, J. E., & Notarius, C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1987-12-05
Volume
295
Issue
6611
Pages
1441-1444
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.295.6611.1441
OpenAlex
W2031064301
Cited by
316
References
0
FWCI
17.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.