Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208606›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Does Exercise Influence Pediatric Bone? A Systematic Review.

Bonny Specker, Natalie W Thiex, Ramu G Sudhagoni

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A comparison of the associations between bone health and three different intensities of accelerometer-derived habitual physical activity in children and adolescents: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Positive Effects of Exercise on Adolescent Growth and Development.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bonny SpeckerEA Martin Program, South Dakota State University, SWC Box 506, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA. Bonny.Specker@sdstate.edu.
Natalie W ThiexBiology and Microbiology Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA.
Ramu G SudhagoniMaster of Public Health Program, School of Health Sciences, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeriods of growth are thought to be the best time to increase bone mineral content, bone area, and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) through increased loading owing to high rates of bone modeling and remodeling. However, questions remain regarding whether a benefit of exercise is seen at all bone sites, is dependent on pubertal status or sex of the child, or whether other factors such as diet modify the response to exercise. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Does bone-loading exercise in childhood consistently increase bone mineral content, bone area, or aBMD? (2) Do effects of exercise differ depending on pubertal status or sex? (3) Does calcium intake modify the bone response to exercise?

methodsA literature search identified 22 unique trials for inclusion in this meta-analysis of the effect of exercise on bone changes by bone site, pubertal status, and sex. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 410 subjects 3 to 18 years old with length of intervention ranging from 3 to 36 months. Fifteen of 22 trials were randomized (child randomized in nine, classroom/school randomized in six) and seven were observational trials. Ten trials were Level 2 and 11 were Level 3 based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Random effects models tested the difference (intervention mean effect-control mean effect) in percent change in bone mineral content, bone area, and aBMD. Meta-regression was used to identify sources of heterogeneity and funnel plots were used to assess publication bias.

resultsChildren assigned to exercise had greater mean percent changes in bone mineral content and aBMD than children assigned to the control groups. Mean differences (95% CI) in bone mineral content percent change between intervention and control groups at total body (0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.3; p = 0.003), femoral neck (1.5; 95% CI, 0.5-2.5; p = 0.003), and spine (1.7; 95% CI, 0.4-3.1; p = 0.01) were significant with no differences in bone area (all p > 0.05). There were greater percent changes in aBMD in intervention than control groups at the femoral neck (0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1; p = 0.006) and spine (1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; p < 0.001). Benefit of exercise was limited to children who were prepubertal (bone mineral content: total body [0.9; 95% CI, 0.2-1.7; p = 0.01], femoral neck [1.8; 95% CI, 0.0-3.5; p = 0.047], spine [3.7; 95% CI, 0.8-6.6; p = 0.01], and aBMD: femoral neck [0.6; 95% CI, -0.1-1.2; p = 0.07], spine [1.5; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3; p < 0.001]), with no differences among children who were pubertal (all p > 0.05). Changes in aBMD did not differ by sex (all p > 0.05), although the number of studies providing male-specific results was small (six of 22 eligible studies included boys). There was significant heterogeneity in bone mineral content and bone area for which a source could not be identified. Heterogeneity in spine aBMD was reduced by including calcium intake and intervention length as covariates. Three trials designed to determine whether calcium intake modified the bone response to exercise all reported a greater effect of exercise on leg bone mineral content in children randomized to receive supplemental calcium than those receiving placebo.

conclusionsExercise interventions during childhood led to 0.6% to 1.7% greater annual increase in bone accrual, with effects predominantly among children who were prepubertal. If this effect were to persist into adulthood, it would have substantial implications for osteoporosis prevention. It is important to identify sources of heterogeneity among studies to determine factors that might influence the bone response to increased exercise during growth. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Adolescent DevelopmentBone DevelopmentChild DevelopmentAdolescentAge FactorsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone and BonesBone DensityChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMalePubertySex FactorsWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID26208606
PMCPMC4586223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.