Evidence Hub

Pharmacological interventions to improve bone density in functional hypothalamic amenorrhea: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Efthymiadis A, Tsikopoulos K, Mills EG, Milne A, Dhillo WS, Abbara A, Comninos AN

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2026

897 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Context: Women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA) are at high risk of poor bone health. When lifestyle measures fail to restore menses, pharmacological interventions are needed for bone health, but comparative efficacy remains unclear.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of available pharmacological interventions to improve bone mineral density (BMD), in women with FHA, employing network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources: Medline, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane CENTRAL, ISRCTN, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to 20 September 2025.

Study selection: Eligible randomized-controlled trials evaluated pharmacological interventions for lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), or total hip (TH) BMD in women with FHA. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and texts.

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews-network meta-analysis guidelines. Outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects NMA. Evidence certainty was assessed with CINeMA.

Data synthesis & results: Thirteen randomized-controlled trials (n = 897 participant observations across all pharmacotherapy comparisons) were included (LS BMD: n = 897; FN BMD: n = 370; TH BMD: n = 750). Transdermal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was superior to control (placebo or no intervention) for LS BMD with SMD: 0.34 (0.03, 0.64) and FN BMD with SMD: 0.57 (0.04,…

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: 897 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