ArticleEndocrine2015
Calcium supplements controversy in osteoporosis: a physiological mechanism supporting cardiovascular adverse effects.
Article in Endocrine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antioxidant Carboxymethyl Chitosan Carbon Dots with Calcium Doping Achieve Ultra-Low Calcium Concentration for Iron-Induced Osteoporosis Treatment by Effectively Enhancing Calcium Bioavailability in Zebrafish.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Calcium supplementation and cardiovascular risk: A rising concern.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Review
- Calcium fortification or supplementation in postmenopausal females: Recent controversy.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, administration of calcium supplements for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis has become a highly controversial issue. The findings of epidemiological studies are not necessarily supportive of the practice and are also open to different interpretations. In this article, we attempt to broaden the discussion and provide evidence that calcium supplementation may fail to compensate for renal calcium loss, and also that the resultant increased calcium load in the circulation could lead to extraskeletal deposition, including in the coronary arteries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25687221What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.