The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevention of Postmenopausal Bone Loss by a Low-Magnitude, High-Frequency Mechanical Stimuli: A Clinical Trial Assessing Compliance, Efficacy, and Safety
Abstract
A 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial of 70 postmenopausal women demonstrated that brief periods (<20 minutes) of a low-level (0.2g, 30 Hz) vibration applied during quiet standing can effectively inhibit bone loss in the spine and femur, with efficacy increasing significantly with greater compliance, particularly in those subjects with lower body mass. Introduction: Indicative of the anabolic potential of mechanical stimuli, animal models have demonstrated that short periods (<30 minutes) of low-magnitude vibration (<0.3g), applied at a relatively high frequency (20–90 Hz), will increase the number and width of trabeculae, as well as enhance stiffness and strength of cancellous bone. Here, a 1-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial in 70 women, 3–8 years past the menopause, examined the ability of such high-frequency, low-magnitude mechanical signals to inhibit bone loss in the human. Materials and Methods: Each day, one-half of the subjects were exposed to short-duration (two 10-minute treatments/day), low-magnitude (2.0 m/s2 peak to peak), 30-Hz vertical accelerations (vibration), whereas the other half stood for the same duration on placebo devices. DXA was used to measure BMD at the spine, hip, and distal radius at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months. Fifty-six women completed the 1-year treatment. Results and Conclusions: The detection threshold of the study design failed to show any changes in bone density using an intention-to-treat analysis for either the placebo or treatment group. Regression analysis on the a priori study group demonstrated a significant effect of compliance on efficacy of the intervention, particularly at the lumbar spine (p = 0.004). Posthoc testing was used to assist in identifying various subgroups that may have benefited from this treatment modality. Evaluating those in the highest quartile of compliance (86% compliant), placebo subjects lost 2.13% in the femoral neck over 1 year, whereas treatment was associated with a gain of 0.04%, reflecting a 2.17% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.06). In the spine, the 1.6% decrease observed over 1 year in the placebo group was reduced to a 0.10% loss in the active group, indicating a 1.5% relative benefit of treatment (p = 0.09). Considering the interdependence of weight, the spine of lighter women (<65 kg), who were in the highest quartile of compliance, exhibited a relative benefit of active treatment of 3.35% greater BMD over 1 year (p = 0.009); for the mean compliance group, a 2.73% relative benefit in BMD was found (p = 0.02). These preliminary results indicate the potential for a noninvasive, mechanically mediated intervention for osteoporosis. This non-pharmacologic approach represents a physiologically based means of inhibiting the decline in BMD that follows menopause, perhaps most effectively in the spine of lighter women who are in the greatest need of intervention.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, D. (2001) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.285.6.785 · Cited by 5,529
Cited by
Mechanical signals as anabolic agents in bone
Ozcivici, E., Luu, Y. K., Adler, B., Qin, Y.-X., Rubin, J., Judex, S., & Rubin, C. T. (2010) · Nature Reviews Rheumatology · doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2009.239 · Cited by 441
Self-citationExercise and Bone Mass in Adults
Guadalupe-Grau, A., Fuentes, T., Guerra, B., & Calbet, J. A. L. (2009) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-200939060-00002 · Cited by 397
(2007) · PubMed · Cited by 337
Moreira, L. D. F., Oliveira, M. L. D., Lirani-Galvão, A. P., Marin-Mio, R. V., Santos, R. N. D., & Lazaretti-Castro, M. (2014) · Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia & Metabologia · doi:10.1590/0004-2730000003374 · Cited by 232
Lau, R. W., Liao, L.-R., Yu, F., Teo, T., Chung, R. C., & Pang, M. Y. (2011) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215511405078 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubin, C., Recker, R., Cullen, D., Ryaby, J., McCabe, J., & McLeod, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-03-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 343-351
- ISSN
- 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-4681
- OpenAlex
- W2013785685
- Cited by
- 592
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevention of Postmenopausal Bone Loss by a Low-Magnitude, High-Frequency Mechanical Stimuli: A Clinical Trial Assessing Compliance, Efficacy, and Safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1359/jbmr.0301251
- The paper
- Rubin, C., Recker, R., Cullen, D., Ryaby, J., McCabe, J., & McLeod, K. (2004). Prevention of Postmenopausal Bone Loss by a Low-Magnitude, High-Frequency Mechanical Stimuli: A Clinical Trial Assessing Compliance, Efficacy, and Safety. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.0301251
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.