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

Source study found

Story checked

OsteoStrong® Study Accepted for Publication in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) - OsteoStrong Franchising, Inc (opens in a new tab)

osteostrong.me · 2025-01-01

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mostly not supported

Mostly not supported.

3 key claims are not backed by the study. 2 other points were not covered by the paper.

  • 1 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 3 not supported
  • 2 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® Study Accepted for Publication in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) - OsteoStrong Franchising, Inc

osteostrong.me · 2025-01-01

The story’s checkable claims.

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

NewsLink checks it

Mostly not supported

Four claims go beyond the study. One overstates it and three aren't supported at all. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 1 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 3 not supported
  • 2 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 supportedThe article says the intervention led to statistically significant increases in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total femur.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract profile does not support statistically significant increases across lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total femur/hip attributable to the intervention. Significant adjusted findings were limited to lumbar spine BMD in the Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup and the no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup, plus left total hip BMD in the Osteostrong® + antiresorptive subgroup. Other femoral neck and total hip changes did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction. The causal phrase 'led to' also outruns the nonrandomized, within-subgroup evidence.

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 2 of 7Not supportedThe article says the intervention improved trabecular bone score, suggesting better bone microarchitecture and reduced fracture risk.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract profile says trabecular bone score changes did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction. It also does not provide fracture-risk outcomes supporting a reduced-fracture-risk claim. The causal framing is not supported by the quasi-experimental abstract evidence.

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 OsteoStrong enhanced the effect of antiresorptive medications and that participants not taking those medications also improved.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract profile does not show that Osteostrong® enhanced antiresorptive medication effects through a direct between-group or interaction test. Significant lumbar spine increases occurred in both antiresorptive subgroups, including the no-Osteostrong® subgroup, and non-antiresorptive subgroups are not reported as significantly improved after correction. The claim overstates and partly contradicts the reported subgroup findings.

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 4 of 7OverstatedThe company frames OsteoStrong as a non-pharmaceutical alternative that can strengthen the skeleton in one 10-minute session per week.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedone 10-minute session per week

Why this verdict

The profile supports that Osteostrong® is a brief, weekly, low-impact, high-intensity program described as 10 minutes per week and intended to strengthen bone. But framing it as a non-pharmaceutical alternative that 'can strengthen the skeleton' states efficacy more strongly than the abstract-level observational, nonrandomized evidence supports.

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 5 of 7Not coveredA study on OsteoStrong’s proprietary system has been accepted for publication in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied abstract-level paper profile does not provide bibliographic/publication-status evidence confirming acceptance in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. This may be true externally, but it is not verifiable from the provided paper profile.

Claim 6 of 7Not coveredThe study, titled Effective Brief, Low-impact, High-intensity Osteogenic Loading in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis, was conducted by Nektaria Papadopoulou-Marketou, Anna Papageorgiou, Nikolaos Marketos, Panagiotis Tsiamyrtzis, Georgios Vavetsis, and George P. Chrousos.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied profile does not include the full author list or enough bibliographic metadata to verify the title/authorship claim at abstract depth.

Claim 7 of 7SupportedIn 147 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the OsteoStrong intervention was compared with a control group without the intervention.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated147 women

Why this verdict

The abstract profile reports 147 peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis separated into an Osteostrong® group and a group without Osteostrong® over 12 months. The story’s wording is broadly consistent, though it simplifies peri-/postmenopausal to postmenopausal.

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.

  • Key statistical structure: abstract reports within-subgroup paired tests with Bonferroni correction, not direct randomized between-group causal comparisons.

    This is material to interpretation and is not reflected in the story. The story frames several findings as intervention-caused improvements, while the profile emphasizes within-subgroup paired analyses and lack of between-group comparative statistics in the abstract.

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

  • Supported significant findings after correction: lumbar spine BMD increased in Osteostrong® + antiresorptive participants and in no-Osteostrong® + antiresorptive participants; left total hip BMD increased in Osteostrong® + antiresorptive participants.

    The story generalizes improvements to the intervention rather than accurately limiting significant findings to specific medication-defined subgroups and noting that the no-Osteostrong® antiresorptive subgroup also improved at the lumbar spine.

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

  • Non-significant findings after correction: other femoral neck BMD, total hip BMD, and TBS changes did not remain significant after Bonferroni adjustment.

    The story claims significant BMD increases across multiple sites and TBS improvement, but the abstract profile states several of these outcomes did not retain significance after multiplicity adjustment.

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

  • Medication subgroup interpretation: antiresorptive medication is a major co-intervention/confounder; the abstract does not establish that Osteostrong® enhances antiresorptive effects or works independently without medication.

    The story presents synergy with antiresorptives and improvement without them, but the profile reports medication-stratified within-subgroup findings without direct interaction testing and without significant corrected improvements in non-antiresorptive subgroups.

    From Medication-stratified within-group paired analysis

  • Limitations: nonrandomized allocation, potential confounding, within-subgroup analyses, multiplicity adjustment, limited abstract detail, lack of subgroup sample sizes/precision, and need for randomized trials.

    The story caveats note acceptance/publication status and company-backed framing, but they do not acknowledge the main interpretation-changing scientific limitations in the abstract profile.

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

3 things the story did carry across
  • Study design: quasi-experimental, nonrandomized 12-month case-series comparison of Osteostrong® versus no Osteostrong® in peri-/postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.
  • Participants and grouping: 147 peri-/postmenopausal women; 75 received Osteostrong® and 72 did not, with subgroups defined by antiresorptive medication use.
  • Outcome methods: DXA-derived BMD at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, plus DXA-derived trabecular bone score, measured at baseline and 12 months.
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

Bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in Spanish postmenopausal women without osteoporosis: correlation with demographic factors.

Revista De Osteoporosis Y Metabolismo Mineral · 2025 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.