Effects of different impact exercise modalities on bone mineral density in premenopausal women: a meta-analysis

被引:0
作者
Marrissa Martyn-St James
Sean Carroll
机构
[1] Leeds Metropolitan University,Carnegie Faculty of Sport and Education
[2] Leeds Metropolitan University,undefined
来源
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism | 2010年 / 28卷
关键词
Bone density; Osteoporosis; Exercise; Systematic review; Meta-analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Our objective was to assess the effects of differing modes of impact exercise on bone density at the hip and spine in premenopausal women through systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases, key journals and reference lists were searched for controlled trials investigating the effects of impact exercise interventions on lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in premenopausal women. Exercise protocols were categorised according to impact loading characteristics. Weighted mean difference (WMD) meta-analyses were undertaken. Heterogeneity amongst trials was assessed. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Inspection of funnel plot symmetry was performed. Trial quality assessment was also undertaken. Combined protocols integrating odd- or high-impact exercise with high-magnitude loading (resistance exercises), were effective in increasing BMD at both LS and FN [WMD (fixed effect) 0.009 g cm−2 95% CI (0.002–0.015) and 0.007 g cm−2 95% CI (0.001–0.013); P = 0.011 and 0.017, respectively]. High-impact only protocols were effective on femoral neck BMD [WMD (fixed effect) 0.024 g cm−2 95% CI (0.002–0.027); P < 0.00001]. Funnel plots showed some asymmetry for positive BMD outcomes. Insufficient numbers of protocols assessing TH BMD were available for assessment. Exercise programmes that combine odd- or high-impact activity with high-magnitude resistance training appear effective in augmenting BMD in premenopausal women at the hip and spine. High-impact-alone protocols are effective only on hip BMD in this group. However, diverse methodological and reporting discrepancies are evident in published trials.
引用
收藏
页码:251 / 267
页数:16
相关论文
共 173 条
[1]  
Peck WA(1993)Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis Am J Med 94 646-650
[2]  
Burckhardt P(2000)Peak bone mass Osteoporos Int 11 985-1009
[3]  
Christiansen C(2004)American College of Sports Medicine position stand on physical activity and bone health Med Sci Sports Exer 36 1985-1996
[4]  
Fleisch HA(1984)Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodelling J Biomech 17 897-905
[5]  
Genant HK(1988)Vital biomechanics: proposed general concepts for skeletal adaptations to mechanical usage Calcif Tissue Int 42 145-156
[6]  
Gennari C(2005)Femoral neck structure in adult female athletes subjected to different loading modalities J Bone Miner Res 20 520-528
[7]  
Martin TJ(2008)Exercise for optimising peak bone mass in women Proc Nutr Soc 67 9-18
[8]  
Martinin L(2000)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement Br J Surg 87 1448-1454
[9]  
Morita R(2006)Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group J Rheumatol 33 9-15
[10]  
Ogata A(2000)Systematic review of randomised trials of the effect of exercise on bone mass in pre- and postmenopausal women Calcif Tissue Int 67 10-18