Introduction
Purpose
Methods
Inclusion criteria
P | Women, ≥65 years, living with osteoporosis and one or several vertebral compression fractures |
I1
| Person-centered interventions |
I2
| Other supporting interventions |
C | Conventional treatment |
O | Primary—pain, quality of life, fear of falling, social and physical isolation Secondary—physical mobility |
S | RCT and observational studies |
Search method
Information sources and search
Study selection
Data extraction
Assessment of risk of bias
Results
First author | Year/country | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|---|
Barker K. L. et al. [36] | 2014 UK | Design and study protocol |
Bennell K. L. et al. [37] | 2010 Australia | Population of both men and women |
Ekström H. et al. [38] | 2013 Sweden | Multiple fractures included |
Giangregorio L. M. et al. [14] | 2014 Canada | Recommendations |
Giangregorio L. M. et al. [39] | 2013 Canada | Review |
Gran Kronhed A. C. et al. [40] | 2009 Sweden | Exclusively osteoporosis |
Hall S. E. et al. [41] | 1999 Australia | No intervention |
Hongo M. et al. [42] | 2006 Japan | Exclusively osteoporosis |
Hoshino M. et al. [43] | 2013 Japan | Population of both men and women |
Hübscher M. et al. [44] | 2010 Germany | Descriptive |
Kaffashian S. et al. [45] | 2011 France | Compilation of health-related costs |
Kammerlander C. et al. [4] | 2014 Austria | Epidemiology and screening |
Klazen C. A. et al. [32] | 2010 Netherlands | Descriptive |
Lukert B. P. et al. [46] | 1994 USA | Recommendations of pain relief |
Majumdar S. R. [47] | 2012 Canada | Intervention targeting treatment compliance |
Papa J. A. [48] | 2012 Canada | Descriptive |
Pratelli E. et al. [49] | 2010 Italy | Recommendations |
Riccio I. et al. [50] | 2013 Italy | Recommendations |
Schröder G. et al. [51] | 2012 Germany | Exclusively osteoporosis |
Suzuki N. et al. [6] | 2008 Japan/Sweden | Descriptive |
Suzuki N. et al. [52] | 2009 Japan/Sweden | Descriptive |
Suzuki N. et al. [53] | 2010 Japan/Sweden | Descriptive |
Varacallo M. A. [5] | 2014 USA | Medical treatment |
Venmans A. et al. [54] | 2014 Netherlands | Descriptive pain |
Wang L. Y. et al. [55] | 2013 Taiwan | Descriptive balance |
Yoon S. P. et al. [56] | 2014 Korea | Descriptive |
Study characteristics
Authors | Year | Country | Patients | Mean age (year) | Study design | Study duration | Outcome variables | Intervention vs control | Discontinuation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Olsen C.F. & Bergland A. [61] | 2014 | Norway | IT, 47; CT, 42 | 71.1 | RCT | 12 months | P, mobility; S, fear of falling | Exercise program 60 min/3 months vs. maintaining current exercise | IT, 19% (9) discontinued; CT, 24% (10) discontinued |
Papaioannou A., Adachi J. D., Winegard K., Ferko N., Parkinson, W., Cook, R J., Webber, C & McCartney N. [62] | 2003 | Canada | IT, 37; CT, 37 | 71.6 | RCT | 12 months | P, QoL; S, function; S, bone mineral density | Home-based exercise program 60 min 3 days/week 6 months vs. maintaining current exercise | CT + IT, 19% (14) discontinued 6 months; 23% (17) discontinued 12 months |
Gold D.T., Shipp K.M., Pieper C.F., Duncan P. W., Martinez S. & Lyles K.W. [58] | 2004 | USA | IT, 94; CT, 91 | 81 | RCT/cross-over | 12 months (6 + 6 months) | P, trunk extension; P, pain with activities; P, psychological symptoms | Exercise and coping classes 45 min 2 times/week 6 months vs. health education 6 months | IT, 10% (9) discontinued phase 1; 23% (22) discontinued phase 2; CT, 5, 5% (5) discontinued phase 1; 15% (14) discontinued phase 2 |
Bergland A., Thorsen H. & Kåresen R. [59] | 2011 | Norway | IT, 47; CT, 42 | 71.4 | RCT | 12 months | P, mobility (walking speed); S, mobility (up and go); S, balance; S, HRQoL | Circuit exercise and coping class 1 h 2 times/week in 3 months vs. maintaining current lifestyle | IT, 20% (9) discontinued; CT, 24% (10) discontinued |
Malmros B., Mortensen L., Jensen M. B. & Charles P. [60] | 1998 | Denmark | IT, 27; CT, 25 | IT, 65; CT, 68 | RCT | 22 weeks | Pain, use of analgesics; functional status, QoL, muscle strength. | Physiotherapeutic training 2 times/week 10 weeks vs. no training | IT, 11% (3) discontinued; CT, 8% (2) discontinued |
Zambito A., Bianchini D., Gatti D., Rossini M., Adami S. & Viapiana O. [63] | 2007 | Italy | HT, 35; IFT, 35; SHAM, 35 | IFT, 70.8; HT, 70.5; HT sham, 70.5 | RCT | 14 weeks | P, chronic low back pain | IFT therapy vs. HT therapy vs. sham HT therapy | HT (35) + IFT (35) + HT sham (35) 0% discontinued |
Kessenich C.R., Guyatt G.H., Patton C.L., Griffith., Hamlin A. & Rosen C.J. [57] | 2000 | USA | IT, 25; CT,25 | IT, 71.7; CT, 69.6 | Observational study/cross sectional | 8 weeks | P, QoL | Support and educational group 90 min 1 time/week in 8 weeks vs. usual clinical care | IT, 0% discontinued; CT, 0% discontinued |
Risk of bias within studies
Selection bias | Performance bias | Assessment bias | Attrition bias | Reporting bias | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Olsen 2014 | + | + | + | + | ? |
Papaioannou 2003 | + | ? | + | + | + |
Gold 2004 | + | + | + | + | ? |
Bergland 2011 | + | + | + | + | + |
Malmros 1998 | ? | + | ? | ? | + |
Zambito 2007 | + | ? | + | + | + |
Kessenich 2000 | - | + | ? | + | + |
Results of individual studies
Physical mobility
Measurements | Intervention | Control | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Physical mobility | ||||
Olsen et al. 2014 | Maximum walking speed (sec/min over 20 m) | 3 months, −1.3 (95% CI −2.0, −0.6), between groups p < 0.01 | 3 months, 0.6 (95% CI −0.3, 1.4) | • Participants and administrator of the intervention was not blinded for allocation, but this is difficult given the nature of the intervention. • The authors report a discontinuation of 21%, which can be seen as moderate. • Assessment of mobility and balance can be seen as sensitive to assessment bias in the nature of the testing. |
12 months, −0.9 (95% CI −1.4, −0.3), between groups p = 0.02 | 12 months, 0.6 (95% CI −0.5, 1.8) | |||
Functional reach (cm) | 3 months, 1.6 (95% CI 0.1, 3.1), between groups p < 0.01 | 3 months, −2.2 (95% CI −3.8, −0.7) | ||
12 months, 1.0 (95% CI −0.6, 2.6), between groups p = 0.49 | 12 months, 0.3 (95% CI −1.0, 1.6) | |||
Papaioannou et al. 2003 [64] | OQLQ (physical function) (range 1–7) | 6 months, 0.22 (95% CI −0.08, 0.52), between groups p = 0.15 | • In the section on describing the management of the participants, it is unclear whether they or the practitioners were blinded or not, which may not be possible considering the nature of the intervention. • The use of assessing mobility can be seen as sensitive to assessing bias. • The randomization process was briefly described without reason for using stratified and blocked limitations. | |
12 months, 0.16 (95% CI −0.35, 0.68), between groups p = 0.18 | ||||
Stance test (balance) (sec) | 6 months, 0.80 (95% CI −1.45, −0.15), between groups p = 0.01 | |||
Time up and go (function) (sec) | 6 months, −0.01 (95% CI −1.58, 1.56) Between groups
p = 0.99 | |||
Gold et al. 2004 [60] | Trunk extension (B-200 isostation) (range 0–80 ft_ib) | Phase 1, 6.628, between groups 10.68, (95% CI 6.98–14.39),
p = <0.01 | Phase 1, −4.560 | • The assessment tool for trunk extension can be seen as sensitive to assessment bias due to its nature. • In regards to the reporting of discontinuation, and the reasons for this, is unclear in the publication and also how they have incorporated this in the analysis |
Phase 2, −3.60 (95% CI −6.40–1.71), within groups p = 0.02 | Phase 2, 15.02 (95% CI 10.80–19.27), within groups p = <0.01 | |||
Bergland et al. 2011 [61] | Maximum walking speed (sec/min over 20 m) | 3 months, −1.3 (95% CI −2.0, −0.6), between groups p = 0.001 | 3 months, 0.6 (95% CI −0.3, 1.4) | • The process of randomization was implemented with a block of 8, for which the purpose is not stated. • Assessment of mobility can be seen as sensitive for assessing bias. • Due to the nature of the intervention, neither the practitioners nor the participants were blinded to the allocation of group. |
12 months, −0.9 (95% CI −1.4, 0.3), between groups p = 0.019 | 12 months, 0.6 (95% CI −0.6, 1.8) | |||
Time up and go (sec/min sitting-walk 3 m-sitting) | 3 months, 0.5 (95% CI −0.9, −0.01), between groups p = 0.026 | 3 months, 0.4 (95% CI -−0.2, 1.1) | ||
12 months, −0.6 (95% CI −1.0, −0.2), between groups p = 0.021 | 12 months, 0.2 (95% CI −0.4, 0.7) | |||
Functional reach (cm) | 3 months, 1.7 (95% CI 0.1, 3.1), between groups p = 0.001 | 3 months, −2.2 (95% CI −3.8, −0.7) | ||
12 months, 1.1 (95% CI −0.7, 2.7), between groups p = 0.49 | 12 months, −0.3 (95% CI −1.0, −1.6) | |||
Qualeffo-41 physical function (range 0–100) | 3 months, −2.1 (95% CI −4.9, 0.8), between groups p = 0.40 | 3 months, −0.6 (95% CI −2.6, 1.5) | ||
12 months, −2.5 (95% CI −5.0, −0.03), between groups p = 0.047 | 12 months, −1.0 (95% CI −1.5, 3.4) | |||
Malmros et al. 1998 [62] | Daily level of function (Oswestry questionnaire) (score 0–74) | 10 weeks, Ca 15% | 10 weeks, Ca 45% | • There is a low risk of selection bias, but an explanation for using block limitation of 12 is not described. • The study participants and the physiotherapist were not blinded to allocation due to the nature of the intervention; however, the evaluators were. • The instrument used for assessing daily level of function was not validated after modification. |
22 weeks, Ca 45% | 22 weeks, Ca 50% | |||
Balance (Chattecx balance system) (sway index) | 5 weeks, 17.6 (95% CI 15.6, 20.1), between groups p = 0.08 | 5 weeks, 20.4 (95% CI 17.4, 25.4) | ||
10 weeks, 17.8 (95%CI 14.9, 19.3), between groups p = 0.08 | 10 weeks, 21.1 (95%CI 16.4, 25.5) | |||
Arm strength (kg) | 5 weeks, 26.2 (95% CI 23.9, 29.1), between groups p = 0.05 | 5 weeks, 23.2 (95% CI 19.1, 27.3) | ||
10 weeks, 26.7 (95% CI 23.7, 28.9), between groups p = 0.08 | 10 weeks, 22.6 (95% CI 20.2, 28.2) |
Pain
Measurements | Intervention | Control | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pain | ||||
Malmros et al. 1998 [62] | Pain level (range 0–10) | 5 weeks, 70% <3 score, between groups p = 0.02 | 5 weeks, 60% <3 score | • The use of PP or ITT was not described • The study participants and the physiotherapist were not blinded to allocation due to the nature of the intervention; however, the evaluators were. |
10/22 weeks, Ca 80% <3score, between groups p = 0.02 | 10/22 weeks, Ca 60% <3score | |||
Use of analgesic (0–20; 20=no analgesic) | 5 weeks, ca 60% 20 score | 5 weeks, 40% 20 score | ||
10/22 weeks, ca 60/55% 20 score | 10/22 weeks, 45/40% 20 score | |||
Gold et al. 2004 [60] | Pain with activity FSI (range 1–4) | Phase 1, −0.022, between groups−0.03, (95% CI −0. 14, −0.08), p = 0.64 | Phase 1, 0.004 | • An in-advance published study protocol is missing and chosen outcomes cannot be audited. |
Phase 2, −0.03 (95% CI −0.11, −0.06), within groups p = 0.54 | Phase 2, −0.03 (95% CI −0.11, −0.17), within groups p = 0.70 | |||
Zambito et al. 2007 | Pain score (VAS) (range 0–10) | 2 weeks, HT 6 score, IFT ca 7 score | 2 weeks, sham HT ca 6 score | • The randomize process is well described but without but without any given explanation to the block limitation. • Both the participants and the physicians that evaluated the patients and administered the questionnaires where blinded to the allocation of treatment. • There is a lack of clarity on which outcomes were primary and if there were any other outcomes reported in the study protocol, since this is not published. • There was neither any report of adverse events due to the treatment. |
6 weeks, HT ca 5.5 score, IFT 5 score, between groups p ≤ 0.01 | 6 weeks, sham HT 6.2 score | |||
14 weeks, HT ca 4.5 score, IFT ca 5.5 score, between groups p ≤ 0.01 | 14 weeks, sham HT ca 7 score | |||
Backhill (range 0–40) | 2 weeks, HT ca 27 score, IFT ca 27 score | 2 weeks, sham HT 25 score | ||
6 weeks, HT ca 29 score, IFT ca 28 score, between groups p = <0.01 | 6 weeks, sham HT ca 25 score | |||
14 weeks, HT ca 32 score, IFT ca 29 score, between groups p = <0.01 | 14 weeks, sham HT 25 score |
Social and physical isolation
Quality of life
Measurements | Intervention | Control | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quality of life | ||||
Bergland et al. 2011 [61] | GHQ-20 (range 0–3) | 3 months, −3.7 (95% CI −5.5, −1.9), between groups p = 0.009 | 3 months, −0.2 (95% CI −2.1, 1.7) | • There is no description of how the authors balanced baseline variables, even though the discontinuation was small. • There are no reports of an in-advance published study protocol. |
12 months, −2.8 (95% CI −4.6, −1.0), between groups p = 0.17 | 12 months, −1.1 (95% CI −2.8, 0.7) | |||
QUALEFFO-41 total (range 0–100) | 3 months, −2.1 (95% CI −4.2, −0.02), between groups p = 0.15 | 3 months, 0.2 (95% CI −2.2, 2.5) | ||
12 months, −3.3 (95% CI −5.2, −1.3), between groups p = 0.019 | 12 months, −0.4 (95% CI −2.0, −2.7) | |||
Papaioannou et al. 2003 [64] | OQLQ (mean changes) (range1–7) | Between groups Symptoms 6 months, 0.44 (95% CI 0.16, 0.73),
p = 0.003; 12 months, 0.38 (95% CI −0.05, 0.81),
p = 0.02 | • It is unclear whether they or the practitioners were blinded or not, which may not be possible considering the nature of the intervention. • There is also a question regarding reporting as they did not refer to any published study protocol and there were no structured descriptions of adverse events or complications occurring during the intervention. | |
Emotion, 6 months, 0.34 (95% CI 0.02, 0.66),
p = 0.01; 12 months, 0.30 (95% CI −0.21, 0.81),
p = 0.10 | ||||
Leisure/social, 6 months, 0.39 (95% CI −0.02, 0.81), p = 0.03; 12 months, 0.26 (95% CI −0.22, 0.74), p = 0.09 | ||||
SIP (mean changes) (range 0–68) | 6 months, 0.55 (95% CI −1.81, 2.91), between groups p = 0.54 | |||
Kessenich et al. 2000 [59] | Cantril ladder (range 0–10, mean changes) | 8 weeks, 7.4, between groups −0.32 (95% CI −0.94, 0.30), p = 0.30 | 8 weeks, 6.8 | • In this study, there is a high risk for selection bias since the participants were allocated through own preferences. This will contribute to a difference between groups at baseline, perhaps not in demographic data but on level of motivation and physical function. • No previously published study-protocol was described. |
SF-36 (physical) (range 0–100, mean change) | 8 weeks, 38.4, between groups 2.06 (95% CI −0.76, 4.89),
p = 0.15 | 8 weeks, 36.7 | ||
SF-36 (mental) (range 0–100, mean changes) | 8 weeks, 52.8, between groups 2.00 (95% CI −1.82, 5.82), p = 0.30 | 8 weeks, 51.7 | ||
OQLQ (range 1–7, mean changes) | 8 weeks, Symptoms, 5.0, between groups 0.15 (95% CI −0.26, 0.56), p = 0.46 | 8 weeks, Symptoms, 5.1 | ||
Emotion, 5.1, between groups 0.08 (95% CI −0.27, 0.43) p = 0.64 | Emotion, 5.3 | |||
Leisure/social, 5.3, between groups 0.2 (95% CI −0.26, 0.66),
p = 0.38 | Leisure/social, 5.5 | |||
Malmros et al. 1998 [62] | QoL (own questionnaire) (range 0–20) | 5 weeks, 65% >120 score, between groups p = 0.01 | 5 weeks, 35% >120 score | • An in-advance published study protocol was not described and which outcomes were primary or secondary is unclear. • In this publication, there are some unclear risks of bias in that the instruments used for assessing QoL were not validated. |
10 weeks, 85% >120 score, between groups p = 0.0001 | 10 weeks, 15% >120 score | |||
22 weeks, 75% >120 score, between groups p = 0.0008 | 22 weeks, 25% >120 score |
Fear of falling
Measurements | Intervention | Control | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fear of falling | ||||
Olsen et al. 2014 | FES-1 (range 16–64 (1–4), mean change) | 3 months, −2.5 (95% CI −4.2, −0.7), between groups p = 0.004 | 3 months, 0.8 (95% CI 0.6, 2.1) | • Participants and administrator of the intervention was not blinded for allocation, but this is difficult given the nature of the intervention. |
12 months, −2.7 (95% CI −4.4, −0.9), between groups p < 0.01 | 12 months, 2.8 (95% CI 1.0, 4.5) |
Psychological symptoms
Measurements | Intervention | Control | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Psychological symptoms | ||||
Gold et al. 2004 [60] | Psychological symptoms GSI (range 0–4) | Phase 1, −0.018, between groups −0.08 (95% CI −0.2, –0.10), p < 0.01 | Phase 1, 0.062 | • Participants and administrator of the intervention was not blinded for allocation, but this is difficult given the nature of the intervention. |
Phase 2, −0.01 (95% CI −0.06–0.03), within groups p = 0.60 | Phase 2, −0.11 (95% CI 10.19–13.3), within groups p = 0.006 |