Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Bone strength

Potassiumand Bone Mineral Density (Lumbar Spine)

Two sources here, and they say different things: one measured higher bone Mineral Density (Lumbar Spine) and one found no clear difference.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

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

11.7 percent change2.3

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

Two sources, newest first

We do not pick between these or average them into one number.

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, 2015 · 14 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    The effect of supplementation with alkaline potassium salts on bone metabolism: a meta-analysis.

    Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(4):1311-8. doi:10.1007/s00198-014-3006-9. PMID:25572045.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no pooled estimate is reported for BMD: the abstract states only that there was no effect, with no magnitude, interval or skeletal site
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    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, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 14 studies it pooled

    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

  • Randomised trial, 2013 · 201 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Effect of potassium citrate on bone density, microarchitecture, and fracture risk in healthy older adults without osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.

    J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(1):207-17. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3099. PMID:23162100.

    Number reported
    1.7 percent change
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    1 to 2.3
    Source’s own words
    percent change in lumbar spine areal BMD at 24 months, net of placebo
    Who was studied
    Older adult
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    60 mEq/day potassium citrate
    For how long
    730 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Low201 participants is below the 400-participant optimal information size floorReported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

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

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.

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

Still to read for Potassium

One of the seven things on our list for Potassium has no reading here yet:

  • Potassium

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

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.