ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of bone mineral density of runners with inactive males: A cross-sectional 4HAIE study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine whether running is associated with greater bone mineral density (BMD) by comparing the BMD of regularly active male runners (AR) with inactive nonrunner male controls (INC). This cross-sectional study recruited 327 male AR and 212 male INC (aged 18-65) via a stratified recruitment strategy. BMD of the whole body (WB) and partial segments (spine, lumbar spine (LS), leg, hip, femoral neck (FN), and arm for each side) were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and lower leg dominance (dominant-D/nondominant-ND) was established by functional testing. An ANCOVA was used to compare AR and INC. The AR had greater BMD for all segments of the lower limb (p<0.05), but similar BMD for all segments of the upper limb (p>0.05) compared with INC. Based on the pairwise comparison of age groups, AR had greater BMD of the ND leg in every age group compared with INC (p<0.05). AR had grater BMD of the D leg in every age group except for (26-35 and 56-65) compare with INC (p<0.05). In the youngest age group (18-25), AR had greater BMD in every measured part of lower extremities (legs, hips, femoral necks) compared with INC (p<0.05). In the 46-55 age group AR had greater BMD than INC (p < 0.05) only in the WB, D Leg, D neck, and ND leg. In the 56-65 age group AR had greater BMD than INC (p<0.05) only in the ND leg. Overall, AR had greater BMD compared with INC in all examined sites except for the upper limbs, supporting the notion that running may positively affect bone parameters. However, the benefits differ in the skeletal sites specifically, as the legs had the highest BMD difference between AR and INC. Moreover, the increase in BMD from running decreased with age.
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.