Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33684217›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Effect of Acid or Base Interventions on Bone Health: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

Yibing Han, Min An, Li Yang, Liuran Li, Shitao Rao, Yanzhen Cheng

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yibing HanDepartment of Endocrinology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Min AnDepartment of Endocrinology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Li YangDepartment of Endocrinology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Liuran LiDepartment of Endocrinology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Shitao RaoSchool of Medical Technology and Engineering, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3604-4684
Yanzhen ChengDepartment of Endocrinology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Zhujiang Hospital · CNFujian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a global health issue among the aging population. The effect of the acid or base interventions on bone health remains controversial. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate effects of acidic diets and alkaline supplements on bone health simultaneously. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in 5 available databases and 1 registered clinical trial system to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed effects of the acid-base intervention on bone health. Depending on heterogeneity across studies, the pooled effects were calculated by fixed-effects or random-effects models. The present study included 13 acidic diet intervention studies and 13 alkaline supplement studies for final quantitative assessments. The meta-analysis showed that acidic diets significantly increased net acid excretion [NAE; standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.99; P = 0.003] and urinary calcium excretion (SMD = 0.47, P < 0.00001) but had no significant effect on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD). On the other hand, alkaline supplement intervention significantly reduced NAE (SMD = -1.29, P < 0.00001), urinary calcium excretion (SMD = -0.44, P = 0.007), bone resorption marker aminoterminal cross-linking telopeptide (NTX; SMD = -0.29, P = 0.003), and bone formation marker osteocalcin (OC; SMD = -0.23, P = 0.02), but did not affect the other bone turnover markers. Furthermore, alkaline supplements significantly increased BMD in femoral neck [mean difference (MD) = 1.62, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%], lumbar spine (MD = 1.66, P < 0.00001, I2 = 87%), and total hip (MD = 0.98, P = 0.02, I2 = 99%). Subsequently, meta-regression analyses identified 1 study that substantially contributed to the high heterogeneity of BMD in the latter 2 sites, but sensitivity analysis suggested that this study did not affect the significant pooled effects. Despite that, the results should be interpreted with caution and need to be further validated by a larger RCT. In summary, through integrating evidence from RCTs, the present meta-analysis initially suggests that alkaline supplements may be beneficial to bone metabolism and acidic diets may not be harmful to bone health. This work may be clinically useful for both clinicians and patients with osteoporosis.

Indexed as

Bone DensityOsteoporosisAgedBone and BonesCalcium, DietaryDietary SupplementsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCalcium, Dietaryacidic dietsalkaline supplementsbone healthbone mineral densitybone turnover markers

Identifiers

PMID33684217
PMCPMC8321841
OpenAlexW3134159340

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.