Evidence Hub

Exercise training and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies with emphasis on potential moderators

Ramin Mohebbi, M. Shojaa, M. Kohl, S. von Stengel, F. Jakob, K. Kerschan-Schindl, U. Lange, S. Peters et al.

Osteoporosis International, 2023

5,581 participants · 101 citations

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was (1) to determine exercise effects on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women and (2) to address the corresponding implication of bone and menopausal status or supervision in postmenopausal women. A comprehensive search of eight electronic databases according to the PRISMA statement up to August 9, 2022, included controlled exercise trials ≥ 6 months. BMD changes (standardized mean differences: SMD) at the lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) were considered as outcomes. Study group comparisons were conducted for osteopenia/osteoporosis versus normal BMD, early versus late postmenopausal women, and predominantly supervised versus predominantly non-supervised study arms. We applied an inverse heterogeneity (IVhet) model. In summary, 80 studies involving 94 training and 80 control groups with a pooled number of 5581 participants were eligible. The IVhet model determined SMDs of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16–0.42), 0.27 (95% CI: 0.16–0.39), and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30–0.52) for LS, FN, and THBMD, respectively. Heterogeneity between the trial results varied from low ( I ^2 = 20%, TH BMD) to substantial ( I ^2 = 68%, LS-BMD). Evidence for publication bias/small study effects was negligibly low (FN-, TH-BMD) to high (LSBMD). We observed no significant differences ( p > .09) for exercise effects on LS-, FN-, or TH-BMD-LS between studies/study arms with or without osteopenia/osteoporosis, early versus late…

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. Reported size: 5,581 participants or records.

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