Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis: a consensus of the Belgian Bone Club

This consensus article reviews the various aspects of the non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis, including the effects of nutriments, physical exercise, lifestyle, fall prevention, and hip protectors. Vertebroplasty is also briefly reviewed. Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis is a broad concept. It must be viewed as an essential part of the prevention of fractures from childhood through adulthood and the old age. The topic also includes surgical procedures for the treatment of peripheral and vertebral fractures and the post-fracture rehabilitation. The present document is the result of a consensus, based on a systematic review and a critical appraisal of the literature. Diets deficient in calcium, proteins or vitamin D impair skeletal integrity. The effect of other nutriments is less clear, although an excessive consumption of sodium, caffeine, or fibres exerts negative effects on calcium balance. The deleterious effects of tobacco, excessive alcohol consumption and a low BMI are well accepted. Physical activity is of primary importance to reach optimal peak bone mass but, if numerous studies have shown the beneficial effects of various types of exercise on bone mass, fracture data as an endpoint are scanty. Fall prevention strategies are especially efficient in the community setting, but less evidence is available about their effectiveness in preventing fall-related injuries and fractures. The efficacy of hip protectors remains controversial. This is also true for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Several randomized controlled studies had reported a short-term advantage of vertebroplasty over medical treatment for pain relief, but these findings have been questioned by recent sham-controlled randomized clinical studies

Comparison of pooled risk estimates for adverse effects from different observational study designs: Methodological overview

A diverse range of study designs (e.g. case-control or cohort) are used in the evaluation of adverse effects. We aimed to ascertain whether the risk estimates from meta-analyses of case-control studies differ from that of other study designs

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

Background: There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods and Findings: Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance. Conclusions: Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types