Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Bone strength

Calciumand Bone Mineral Density (Femoral Neck)

Only one source here so far, and it measured higher bone Mineral Density (Femoral Neck).

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

0.3380.627 standardised effect size0.915

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2022

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    The effect of calcium supplementation in people under 35 years old: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Elife. 2022;11. doi:10.7554/eLife.79002. PMID:36164828.

    Number reported
    0.627 standardised effect size
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    0.338 to 0.915
    Source’s own words
    standardised mean difference in femoral neck BMD vs control
    Who was studied
    Adult and child under 35
    Compared with
    placebo or usual intake
    Amount taken
    Not applicable as one amount for a pooled estimate — mg/d calcium (pooled estimate spans all doses and both supplement and high-calcium-diet trials; the review notes doses below 1000 mg/d were sufficient and higher doses added nothing)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Imprecision brought it down to Moderatethe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    risk of bias and indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Calcium

Three of the nine things on our list for Calcium have no reading here yet:

  • HDL cholesterol
  • LDL cholesterol
  • Parathyroid Hormone (PTH)

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

  • Calcium

    Five other questions read for it

  • Bone strength

    Ten questions read under it

  • Bone Mineral Density (Femoral Neck)

    One other ingredient read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.