Evidence Hub

Effects of dynamic resistance exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis with special emphasis on exercise parameters

Shojaa M, von Stengel S, Kohl M, Schoene D, Kemmler W

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2020

116 citations

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the effect of dynamic resistance exercise (DRT) on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in postmenopausal women and derive evidence-based recommendations for optimized training protocols. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) of isolated DRT with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) with intervention durations ≥ 6 months, (d) aBMD assessments at lumbar spine or proximal femur, (e) in cohorts of postmenopausal women. We searched eight electronic databases up to March 2019 without language restrictions. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD changes at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) were defined as outcome measures. Moderators of the exercise effects, i.e., "intervention length," "type of DRT," "training frequency," "exercise intensity," and "exercise volume," were addressed by sub-group analyses. The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID: CRD42018095097. Seventeen articles with 20 exercise and 18 control groups were eligible. SMD average is 0.54 (95% CI 0.22-0.87) for LS-BMD, 0.22 (0.07-0.38) for FN-BMD, and 0.48 (0.22-0.75) for TH-BMD changes (all p ≤ 0.015). While sub-group analysis for FN-BMD revealed no differences within categories of moderators, lower training frequency (< 2…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free