ArticleAmerican journal of lifestyle medicine2015
Calcium Supplements and Cardiovascular Disease: A Review.
Article in American journal of lifestyle medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Bone Loss in HIV Infection.Current treatment options in infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Osteoporosis-Related Health Behaviors in Men With Prostate Cancer and Survivors: Exploring Osteoporosis Knowledge, Health Beliefs, and Self-Efficacy.American journal of men's health · 2017Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Cirrhosis-Related Osteoporosis.BioMed research international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Dietary or supplemental calcium intake has long been encouraged for optimal bone health. However, more recently, the safety of calcium supplementation has been questioned because of a possible association between supplemental calcium and cardiovascular risk. Whereas calcium may have a beneficial or neutral effect on cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, and diabetes, available evidence does not provide a definitive answer for an association with cardiovascular disease (CVD). To date, no calcium trials have studied cardiovascular disease as a primary end point, and larger trials with longer follow-up are needed. In this review, we present results from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have evaluated calcium intake (dietary or supplemental) in relation to cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease as a secondary outcome. Results from RCTs are mixed regarding CVD risk in those using supplemental calcium with or without vitamin D, and more large-scale randomized trials designed specifically with CVD as the primary end point are needed. Evidence suggests that it is reasonable to encourage adequate dietary calcium intake, especially for postmenopausal women who are at greatest risk for osteoporotic fracture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.