Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

OsteoStrong Mobile | Hillcrest OsteoStrong Results: What the Evidence Shows About Bone Density Improvements - (opens in a new tab)

hillcrest.osteostrongmobile.com · 2025-07-11

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Not supported

Not supported.

3 key claims are not backed by the study. One other point was not covered by the paper.

  • 3 overstated
  • 3 not supported
  • 1 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1

The story

OsteoStrong Mobile | Hillcrest OsteoStrong Results: What the Evidence Shows About Bone Density Improvements -

hillcrest.osteostrongmobile.com · 2025-07-11

The story’s checkable claims.

Read the original story (opens in a new tab)
2

NewsLink checks it

Not supported

Six claims go beyond the study. Three overstate it and three aren't supported at all. One claim the study doesn't address.

  • 3 overstated
  • 3 not supported
  • 1 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

7 claims in this story

Showing all 7 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 7Not supportedParticipants who underwent OsteoStrong sessions showed lumbar spine BMD improved from 0.815 to 0.833 g/cm² over 9 months, described as a 2.2% increase.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated0.815 to 0.833 g/cm²; 2.2% over 9 months

Why this verdict

The abstract profile reports 12-month measurements, not 9 months, and gives a mean paired lumbar-spine BMD change of +0.029 g/cm² only for the Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup. It does not support the stated baseline/follow-up values of 0.815 to 0.833 g/cm² or a 2.2% change over 9 months for Osteostrong participants generally.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
Claim 2 of 7Not supportedThe control group showed no significant changes, which the article says supports the OsteoStrong intervention as the cause of the improvements.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile contradicts the claim that the control group showed no significant changes: the no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup had a significant lumbar-spine BMD increase after Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the abstract reports nonrandomized within-subgroup paired analyses, not direct between-group causal evidence that improvements were specifically attributable to Osteostrong®.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
2

Study evidence

Within the Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.029 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“(subgroup G1 without and G2 with antiresorptive medication); and 72 in group B ... (subgroup G3 without and G4 with antiresorptive medication).”
Claim 3 of 7Not supportedThe article says measurable bone density changes typically take 6 to 12 months, with optimal gains after 18 or more months of weekly sessions.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated6-12 months; 18+ months

Why this verdict

The paper profile reports baseline and 12-month follow-up only and explicitly notes that longer-term effects are unknown. It does not support a general timeline that measurable changes typically take 6–12 months or that optimal gains occur after 18+ months of weekly sessions.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
Claim 4 of 7OverstatedA peer-reviewed study accepted by the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2025 found that OsteoStrong produced significant bone mineral density improvements in 147 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated147 postmenopausal women; 2025 study

Why this verdict

The abstract supports that the study included 147 peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and compared Osteostrong® vs no Osteostrong®. But it does not support the broad framing that Osteostrong “produced significant BMD improvements” across the 147 participants. Significant lumbar-spine BMD increases were reported in specific medication subgroups, including both Osteostrong® + antiresorptive and no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive groups, using within-subgroup paired tests in a nonrandomized design.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
2

Study evidence

Within the Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.029 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“(subgroup G1 without and G2 with antiresorptive medication); and 72 in group B ... (subgroup G3 without and G4 with antiresorptive medication).”
Claim 5 of 7OverstatedTrabecular bone score increased from 1.217 to 1.238, which the article presents as improved bone microarchitecture and reduced fracture risk.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated1.217 to 1.238

Why this verdict

The abstract profile says TBS was measured, but other within-group changes including TBS did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction. The stated raw TBS values and p=0.036 are not verified at abstract depth, and presenting the TBS change as improved microarchitecture with reduced fracture risk outruns the paper profile, which reports no fracture outcomes and no adjusted significant TBS finding.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
2

Study evidence

Within the Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.029 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“(subgroup G1 without and G2 with antiresorptive medication); and 72 in group B ... (subgroup G3 without and G4 with antiresorptive medication).”
Claim 6 of 7OverstatedThe article says results are strongest when OsteoStrong is combined with anti-osteoporotic medications.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract supports that significant Osteostrong® findings were reported in the subgroup also receiving antiresorptive medication, while Osteostrong® without antiresorptive medication was not highlighted as significant. However, saying results are “strongest” when combined with medication overstates the abstract evidence because direct between-subgroup or interaction tests are not reported, and antiresorptive medication is a major co-intervention/confounder.

1

Study evidence

Within the Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.029 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“(subgroup G1 without and G2 with antiresorptive medication); and 72 in group B ... (subgroup G3 without and G4 with antiresorptive medication).”
Claim 7 of 7Not coveredThe treatment group’s T-score improved from −2.27 to −1.93.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedT-score from −2.27 to −1.93

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile does not report T-score values or changes. It reports DXA BMD and TBS outcomes but not the stated T-score shift from −2.27 to −1.93, so this exact claim cannot be verified at abstract depth.

1

Study evidence

In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2

“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • The abstract reports within-subgroup paired tests rather than direct between-group comparative statistics for Osteostrong® vs no Osteostrong®.

    This is interpretation-changing because it limits causal attribution. The story instead treats the control comparison as demonstrating Osteostrong-specific effects.

    From Quasi-experimental case-series / pre-post parallel-group (nonrandomized); Medication-stratified within-group paired anal

  • Medication stratification is central: significant lumbar-spine BMD increases occurred in Osteostrong® + antiresorptive medication and also in no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive medication.

    The story notes better results with medication, but it does not reflect the crucial point that a no-Osteostrong® subgroup on antiresorptive medication also improved, which weakens attribution to Osteostrong®.

    From Medication-stratified within-group paired analysis

  • After Bonferroni correction, significant findings were limited: lumbar-spine BMD increased in G2 and G4, and left total hip BMD increased in G2; other BMD sites and TBS did not remain significant.

    The story emphasizes lumbar-spine BMD, T-score, and TBS improvements and says controls had no significant changes, which does not match the adjusted abstract-level findings.

    From Quasi-experimental case-series / pre-post parallel-group (nonrandomized); Medication-stratified within-group paired anal

  • Trabecular bone score changes did not remain significant after multiple-comparison correction.

    The story presents TBS as increased and interprets it as improved microarchitecture/reduced fracture risk, but the abstract profile reports no adjusted significant TBS finding.

    From Quasi-experimental case-series / pre-post parallel-group (nonrandomized); Medication-stratified within-group paired anal

  • The abstract lacks subgroup sample sizes, variability measures, adherence/attendance data, allocation-process detail, and missing-data handling.

    These abstract-level limitations affect precision and risk-of-bias assessment. The story’s broad caveat that some studies may lack scientific standards is too general to reflect these specific limitations.

    From Quasi-experimental case-series / pre-post parallel-group (nonrandomized); Medication-stratified within-group paired anal

2 things the story did carry across
  • The study was a quasi-experimental, nonrandomized 12-month comparison of Osteostrong® vs no Osteostrong® in 147 peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, with DXA-derived BMD and TBS outcomes.
  • The paper profile does not report actual fracture outcomes, and longer-term effects beyond 12 months are unknown.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

2

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

human in vivo

1Lead resulthuman in vivoEvaluate whether a 12-month Osteostrong® program (brief, weekly, low-impact high-intensity osteogenic loading) is associated with changes in lumbar spine and hip bone outcomes (BMD and TBS) in peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, compared with women not receiving Osteostrong®.Quasi-experimental case-series / pre-post parallel-group (nonrandomized)Expand

In plain English

Quasi-experimental, nonrandomized 12-month case-series comparison evaluating brief (10-min), weekly, low-impact high-intensity Osteostrong® loading versus no Osteostrong® in peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N=147). DXA-derived areal BMD (lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck) and DXA-derived TBS were measured at baseline and 12 months. Within-subgroup nonparametric paired tests with Bonferroni correction were used to assess paired changes. Following correction, significant within-group increases were reported for lumbar spine BMD in two subgroups (Osteostrong® + antiresorptive; and no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive) and for left total hip BMD in the Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup; other BMD sites and TBS did not remain significant after adjustment.

Key findings

  • In the Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2
  • In the no-Osteostrong® subgroup receiving antiresorptive medication (G4), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months (mean paired change 0.025 g/cm2; Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.05).mean paired change 0.025 g/cm2
“A quasi-experimental case-series study in which 147 participants were separated into 2 groups”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Nonrandomized, quasi-experimental design with potential for confounding (notably concurrent antiresorptive medication in subgroups).
  • Analyses reported are within-subgroup paired tests; abstract does not present between-group comparative statistics.
  • Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied; several findings are marginally significant after correction.
  • Abstract lacks subgroup sample sizes, measures of variability (SD/CI) for reported mean changes, and adherence/attendance data for the Osteostrong® intervention.
  • Only 12-month follow-up reported; longer-term effects unknown.
  • Reporting limited to abstract prevents assessment of other methodological details (allocation process, missing data handling, exact statistical procedures).
2human in vivoAssess whether observed 12-month changes in BMD/TBS differ by concurrent antiresorptive medication use (subgroups with vs without antiresorptives) within Osteostrong® and non-Osteostrong® groups.Medication-stratified within-group paired analysisExpand

In plain English

Medication-stratified within-group analysis (subgroups G1–G4) evaluated 12-month changes in lumbar spine and hip BMD and TBS using DXA. Within each subgroup, paired nonparametric tests with Bonferroni correction were used. Significant within-subgroup increases after Bonferroni adjustment were reported for lumbar spine BMD in G2 (Osteostrong® + antiresorptive) and G4 (no Osteostrong® + antiresorptive), and for left total hip BMD in G2; other reported within-group changes (femoral neck BMD, total hip BMD, and TBS) did not remain significant after correction. Findings were framed cautiously given the quasi-experimental design and multiplicity adjustment.

Key findings

  • Within the Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G2), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.029 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001).mean paired change 0.029 g/cm2
  • Within the non-Osteostrong® group receiving antiresorptive medication (G4), lumbar spine BMD increased over 12 months by a mean paired change of 0.025 g/cm2 (Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.05).mean paired change 0.025 g/cm2
“(subgroup G1 without and G2 with antiresorptive medication); and 72 in group B ... (subgroup G3 without and G4 with antiresorptive medication).”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Quasi-experimental, non-randomized design limits causal inference about intervention effects and effect modification by medication.
  • Multiplicity adjustment (Bonferroni) affected which subgroup findings remained statistically significant; subgroup-level testing increases risk of type II error and interpretation complexity.
  • Analyses reported are within-subgroup paired tests of change over time; abstract does not report direct between-subgroup or interaction tests assessing differential change by medication status.
  • Abstract does not report subgroup sample sizes or statistical power for the medication-stratified comparisons, limiting assessment of precision and potential for underpowering.
Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 15 candidate papers

Candidate

4:57147. Lumbar Vertebral Blood Flow Measured on Dynamic MRI and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Patients

The Spine Journal · 2006 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.