Talk:Osteoporosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

Reference list[edit]

Ref. No. 42 is cited with regard to Diabetes mellitus (type 1 and 11) being risk factors for osteoporosis. Having read that article in detail it makes no mention of any form of diabetes, so either than paragraph needs to be updated, or another source found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.241.98 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Source for my bit about magnesium[edit]

I have just added a bit on magnesium as needed to prevent osteoporosis. Before any one says this is not cited, here is a source for this information:

http://nutritionalmagnesium.com/research/bone-health/159-magnesium-effective-in-treatment-of-osteoporosis.html

Any one good at in-line citations may wish to add this into the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any better refs. This one is a little old and unfortunate. I have removed the text until refs are found. --Doc James (talk · contribs ·

email) 14:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this reference:

http://www.jacn.org/content/28/Supplement_1/82S.full

At least this one cites references, including three from the The_Lancet! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see that this is a reference to a journal article in the "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition". A high Google search under "Scholarly articles" after one types in "bone health" and "Magnesium" is:

http://www.jacn.org/content/28/Supplement_1/82S.full


which, as you can see, is the same website address. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Any advice about this website? It is fairly up-to-date, but I am not sure how scholarly it is:

http://www.naturalcalm.ca/osteoporosis-and-magnesium.html

The bottom line of that website appears to be that magnesium, as well as calcium, is vital for our bones. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also this website, which emphasises how magnesium is important for good bones and teeth:

http://www.life123.com/health/nutrition/vitamins-minerals/essential-minerals.shtml

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the high-quality secondary source you provided (JACN 2009), the section on magnesium concludes with the sentence: "In any event, much more research on the relationship between magnesium and bone health is needed." I think that's pretty unambiguous. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


New guideline for disease in men[edit]

[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How does aging increase the risk of osteoporosis?[edit]

I've heard some explanations—“By decreasing bone density,” which itself, I've heard, results from disruption of calcium metabolism, which in its own turn occurs with the broader disruption of metabolism triggered by senescence. Alright, but what mechanisms underlie the disruption of calcium metabolism? Do we even know? EIN (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional section on evolutionary considerations[edit]

I am a biology student at Case Western Reserve University and as part of a project for my Darwinian Medicine course I am adding a section on this page about the evolutionary considerations of Osteoporosis and it's relationship to bipedalism. I would love to get feedback on the section before I post it. It will be in my sandbox (Cpb45). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpb45 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Such a section (perhaps within "Epidemiology") can only be sustained by very high-quality secondary sources (e.g. widely recognised textbooks or reviews). We can't really do a randomised controlled trial of bipedalism, so any evolutionary consideration is highly speculative. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concerns regarding the types of sources and the kinds of data available regarding evolution. As far as evolution being highly speculative, this is not the case. Evolution is widely accepted as a theory with high validity and extreme relevance. Articles by Stephen Stearns (Evolutionary Medicine: it's scope, interest and potential), Understanding Evolution (a site by Berkley, "Why Evolution is True" (article or video by Coyne), or Evmedreview.com are all good resources that emphasize the support for evolution and it's relevance to medicine. As far as data is concerned, there cannot be randomized controlled experiments of bipedalism or evolution. This is a comparative and historical science and the need for data should be mindful of the sorts of data that can appropriately for this field. Lastly, I am doing this project as a collaboration with other students and professors from various universities around the country. This group is striving to increase the public understanding of evolution and the possible influences in medicine through understanding the vulnerabilities humans have to certain diseases and where those originate. I hope this helps to ease some of your concerns. Please let me know if you still have any reservations or questions regarding my section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpb45 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of the methodological limitations on evolutionary research, and I agree that observational studies (e.g. association between species posture and bone health) can inform this debate. I do not need to persuaded that evolution exists (not here anyway), nor that certain health conditions have their roots in human evolution, but I want to avoid content that cannot be solidly supported by high-quality sources. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I hope it is very clear that your edits are attributable to you alone, and not on behalf of a group of students or professors. This is expressly against Wikipedia policy. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Loss of Height[edit]

I can find no medical description of this syndrome. The only discussion you ever see cites spinal compression, and does not mention decrease in length of the long bones. I can tell you, it's not welcome! Apart from stoop, personally I discovered that by the age of 70, I now needed trousers (pants in the USA) with 27 inch inside leg, rather than the 29 inch I'd been since adulthood.

But that's not all, I suspect every bone is affected, e.g. my hands are now smaller. Yes, like I said, it's not welcome! I think it's not uncommon, and might affect women more than men, but then they live longer.

A very noticeable example is Queen Elizabeth of the UK. Her well older husband the Duke of Edinburgh has not been affected, which draws attention really. I guess her height at her marriage and now could be deduced from photos and newsreel clips, but how many more examples exist in the ranks of ageing notables?

So, is their some scope for research here, leading to a new syndrome description? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

L0ngpar1sh I don't know if there are any WP:MEDRS sources that might support such a claim. The loss of height is the result of gravity and vertebral collapse, but the cortical and non-weight bearing bones are not thought to change size. New syndromes belong in the medical literature and not really here, per WP:NOR etc etc. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Most people lose height from age 40 onwards. It does seem to be connected at least somewhat with osteoporosis. But regardless of whether there is any direct medical connection, it at least deserves a see-also link.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes we need a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very strange that there seems to be no generic medical term for Loss of Height -- and no corresponding WP article!.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation a cause?[edit]

I live in a country town in which the drinking water is very low on fluoride. Our local government organisation is considering fluoridating the water. In response, anti-fluoriders from all over the country have suddenly moved in. They are claiming that one of the "problems" that fluoridation creates is an increased occurrence of osteoporosis. Googling the two together produces a number of web sites that support this link. Is there any truth in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.135.252 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there 124, we're not allowed to provide medical advice here on Wikipedia, but I will refer you to the Water fluoridation article. I think it will answer your question. I am not aware of any high-quality studies suggesting that water fluoridation plays a major role in osteoporosis though if such studies exist I would be interested to know about them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Effectiveness of treatment[edit]

doi:10.7326/M14-0317 is a very thorough review of treatments for fracture prevention. It compares vertebral, non-vertebral and other fractures in the different agents. Worth including, perhaps even with the NNT. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, here it is. I finally got to it on paper. As far as I can see on my first reading, they didn't change any conclusions significantly, but did support them with a larger evidence base. And they had more on the atypical femur fracture. The accompanying editorial argues that the evidence is weakest where fractures are most prevalent and dangerous, in the older age groups in their 70s and 80s.
Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, et al.
Reviews: Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatments to Prevent Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleID=1902273
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;161(10):711-723. doi:10.7326/M14-0317 18 November 2014
Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Meyer O
Editorial: Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatments to Prevent Fractures: Is This All We Need to Know?
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1902274
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;161(10):755-756. doi:10.7326/M14-1942 18 November 2014
--Nbauman (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Milk & Dairy[edit]

The article currently does not even dare to mention the words "milk" and "dairy". This is too wimpy! Whatever the competing claims pro and con, they ought to be acknowledged, in the article; if the upshot is "nothing conclusively proven" say so... People will come to this article to try to understand if they should perhaps be drinking more milk; what is known?-71.174.175.150 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Cardiac risks[edit]

Crandall, Annals of Internal Medicine, p. 716, said "most ... but not all ... original studies and meta-analyses have concluded that there is no increased risk, and concern about atrial fibrillation has faded." --Nbauman (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Genetics[edit]

From Br Med Bull doi:10.1093/bmb/ldu042 JFW | T@lk 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

US Preventative Task Force[edit]

PMID 23440163 says: "These recommendations apply to noninstitutionalized or community-dwelling asymptomatic adults without a history of fractures. This recommendation does not apply to the treatment of persons with osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency." Can someone who has access to the full text explain why it is used in the "Nutrition" section here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hum yes more about preventing fractures. Not about treating osteoporosis. Moved to section on prevention were it is still not ideal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dated primary source[edit]

Sequoiahealth, could you please explain why you are adding text from a 2002 primary source, relative to WP:MEDRS? The source is more than a decade old; if the findings are relevant, they will have been mentioned in a secondary review. Also, please have a look at WP:3RR and discuss your edits on talk rather than reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiology[edit]

Before my edit on Aug 19, the Epidemiology section began: "Osteoporosis affects 55% of Americans aged 50 and above." This doesn't pass the sniff test and would mean over 50 million people in the US have it. The reference given was a 2002 National Osteoporosis Foundation publication. When I looked at that publication, it said "Osteoporosis and low bone mass" pose a threat to 55% of Americans over age 50. Low bone mass is a different thing and much more common than clinical osteoporosis. I rewrote the beginning of this section to include more realistic numbers and more current references. The American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons website says 10 million Americans have osteoporosis. http://www.aaos.org/about/papers/position/1113.asp The International Osteoporosis Foundation says the number worldwide is 200 million. http://www.iofbonehealth.org/epidemiology Carax (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carax (talkcontribs) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Should have been 15%. Corrected it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NEJM does postmenopausal osteoporosis[edit]

... here: doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1513724 JFW | T@lk 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Osteoporosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Non pharmacological treatment osteoporosis:- 1:protective hip pads 2:vertebroplasty:-percutaneous injection of methylmethacrylate ino factured vertebrae for reconstruction 3;-kyphoplasty. Khalidmehraj1993 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Non pharmacological treatment[edit]

1:Vertebroplasty:-percutaneous injection of cement methyl methacrylate in vertebral bodies. 2: kyphoplasty 3:-prptective hip pads

Khalidmehraj1993 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Some proposed changes[edit]

Kindly add the below sentence and reference to this section "Prognosis-->Vertebral fractures" Recent advances in computer vision techniques have helped to quantify the extent of these vertebral fractures. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20172792 Hidasri (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As before, content about health needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Please do read that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)



My name is German Guerrero, MD, and I am Senior Medical Director, Global Medical Affairs at Radius Health, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company based out of Waltham, MA. I'm here to contribute content on the Osteoporosis page, specifically to the first line of the fourth paragraph under the “Medications” section (under “Management”).

I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, and I will abide by them. My edit suggestions will be restricted to Talk pages, and I will not engage in directly editing any teriparatide-related article. On any pages where I may suggest changes, I will be sure to disclose my relationship to Radius Health in the interest of transparency.

If you have any questions about my editing activities, please leave me a message on my User Talk page.

Revisions to Osteoporosis page[edit]

Current:

Teriparatide ( a recombinant parathyroid hormone ) has been shown to be effective in treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.[110] Some evidence also indicates strontium ranelate is effective in decreasing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.[111] Hormone replacement therapy, while effective for osteoporosis, is only recommended in women who also have menopausal symptoms.[87] It is not recommended for osteoporosis by itself.[105] Raloxifene, while effective in decreasing vertebral fractures, does not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture.[87] And while it reduces the risk of breast cancer, it increases the risk of blood clots and strokes.[87] Denosumab is also effective for preventing osteoporotic fractures but not in males.[87][107] In hypogonadal men, testosterone has been shown to improve bone quantity and quality, but, as of 2008, no studies evaluated its effect on fracture risk or in men with a normal testosterone levels.[56] Calcitonin while once recommended is no longer due to the associated risk of cancer and questionable effect on fracture risk.[112]

Revised:

  • Updating the first sentence of the fourth paragraph under the “Medications” section (under “Management”) to add a recently approved medication

Teriparatide ( a recombinant parathyroid hormone ) and abaloparatide (a human parathyroid hormone related peptide [PTHrP(1-34)] analog) have been shown to be effective in treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture.[110] [1] [2] Some evidence also indicates strontium ranelate is effective in decreasing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.[111] Hormone replacement therapy, while effective for osteoporosis, is only recommended in women who also have menopausal symptoms.[87] It is not recommended for osteoporosis by itself.[105] Raloxifene, while effective in decreasing vertebral fractures, does not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture.[87] And while it reduces the risk of breast cancer, it increases the risk of blood clots and strokes.[87] Denosumab is also effective for preventing osteoporotic fractures but not in males.[87][107] In hypogonadal men, testosterone has been shown to improve bone quantity and quality, but, as of 2008, no studies evaluated its effect on fracture risk or in men with a normal testosterone levels.[56] Calcitonin while once recommended is no longer due to the associated risk of cancer and questionable effect on fracture risk.[112]


References[edit]

CKD[edit]

doi:10.2215/​CJN.11031017 - the specific entity of CKD-osteoporosis. JFW | T@lk 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)