Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33420633›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2021

Nutritional Supplements and Skeletal Health.

Laila S Tabatabai, Deborah E Sellmeyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laila S TabatabaiDivision of Endocrinology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Deborah E SellmeyerDivision of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room S025, Palo Alto, Stanford, CA, 94305-5103, USA. dsellme@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewNutrition influences skeletal health throughout the lifespan, from the impact of maternal intakes during development, through the development of peak bone mass, to the rate of bone loss during aging. However, there are limited data available on the effects of nutritional supplements on bone density, let alone fracture risk. This review will assess the current literature, focusing on human studies, and emphasizing nutrients where bone density or fracture data are available. RECENT

findingsCalcium and vitamin D supplements, in combination, reduce fracture risk, particularly in populations with low intakes. Extensive recent analyses have supported the safety of these interventions at recommended intakes. There is growing evidence that specific isoflavones may improve bone density although fracture data are lacking. Multiple other nutrient supplements may benefit skeletal health, but data are limited. The effect size of nutrient interventions are relatively small, requiring large sample sizes for trials with bone outcomes, may be difficult to blind, and the impact of supplementation may depend on baseline intake. However, nutrition is the only intervention that can be implemented life long and on a population wide basis. Further investigation is needed into the potential benefits of nutritional supplements to determine in which settings supplements may add benefit in addition to dietary intakes.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsBone DensityCalciumFractures, BoneHumansOsteoporosisVitamin DCalciumVitamin DBone densityFractureNutritionOsteoporosis

Identifiers

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.