ArticleNutrition & metabolism2025
Effect of combined exercise and nutrition on bone density in postmenopausal women-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Nutrition & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Radiographic Assessment of Normal Periapical Bone Density: A Descriptive Analysis Based on Digital Imaging.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- The brain-bone-gut axis: a microbial bridge underlying multisystem comorbidities.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundPostmenopausal women are subject to hormonal fluctuations, a rapid decline in bone mineral density (BMD) and a significant increase in fracture risk, and both exercise and nutritional interventions have a positive impact on BMD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of combined exercise and nutrition interventions compared to single nutrition or exercise interventions on BMD in postmenopausal women and specific combined strategies to improve BMD.
methodsA systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar databases and studies identified until April 4, 2025 were performed following strictly the PRISMA evaluation guidelines.The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach, and data analysis was performed using Stata 17.0.
resultsA total of 24 RCTs involving 2,236 postmenopausal women were included. Meta-analysis results showed that EN vs. N demonstrated a positive effect on BMD at the femoral neck (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.27, p = 0.0006), lumbar spine (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07-0.33, p = 0.003), and total hip (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.28, p = 0.014). However, no statistically significant difference in BMD at the same anatomical site was observed EN vs. N. The robustness of the results of subgroup analysis is limited due to differences in intervention regimens, study populations, and sample sizes across different studies.
conclusionsBased on current evidence, there is insufficient support for universal evidence-based recommendations regarding specific combined intervention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION/PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD420251053527).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.