Ca(2+)/Finding
One finding, on its own
A single claim from the graph, with the evidence strength computed from its study, the sentence it was drawn from, and the paper. This address does not change.
No detected effect on hip fracture incidence
ModerateEvidence strength: moderate. Human evidence with one recorded weakness, or capped at moderate by its design or by unread numbers.FindingNull result“The association between calcium administration and hip fracture [risk ratio (RR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 2.69, I2=28%; P=0.11], vertebral fracture (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.10, I2=0%; P=0.49) or other fractures (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06, I2=0%; P=0.14) was not significant in comparison to either no treatment or placebo administration.”
Quoted verbatim from Role of calcium &/or vitamin D supplementation in preventing osteoporotic fracture in the elderly: A systematic review & meta-analysis.. - Study
- meta-analysis
- Population
- Adults older than 50 years with a previous history of fracture; pooled randomised trials of calcium supplementation against placebo or no treatment
Effect 1.56 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.69
Role of calcium &/or vitamin D supplementation in preventing osteoporotic fracture in the elderly: A systematic review & meta-analysis.2023PMID:37602580Permalink
Keep reading
- Everything the graph holds on Ca(2+)
- Every compound studied against Hip fracture incidence
- How to read the evidence strength and the marks
To cite this finding: https://catalystproject.ai/e/01M4QFMCT4ZD4RQ9YSFKM8SC6K