4.6 Article

Calcium and vitamin D supplementation decreases incidence of stress fractures in female Navy recruits

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 741-749

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.080102

关键词

physical training; military training; bone; fracture prevention; young adult

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Stress fractures (SFx) are one of the most common and debilitating overuse injuries seen in military recruits, and they are also problematic for nonmilitary athletic populations. The goal of this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine whether a calcium and vitamin D intervention could reduce the incidence of SFx in female recruits during basic training. Materials and Methods: We recruited 5201 female Navy recruit volunteers and randomized them to 2000 mg calcium and 800 IU vitamin D/d or placebo. SFx were ascertained when recruits reported to the Great Lakes clinic with symptoms. All SFx were confirmed with radiography or technetium scan according to the usual Navy protocol. Results: A total of 309 subjects were diagnosed with a SFx resulting in an incidence of 5.9% per 8 wk. Using intention-to-treat analysis by including all enrolled subjects, we found that the calcium and vitamin D group had a 20% lower incidence of SFx than the control group (5.3% versus 6.6%, respectively, p = 0.0026 for Fisher's exact test). The per protocol analysis, including only the 3700 recruits who completed the study, found a 21% lower incidence of fractures in the supplemented versus the control group (6.8% versus 8.6%, respectively, p = 0.02 for Fisher's exact test). Conclusions: Generalizing the findings to the population of 14,416 women who entered basic training at the Great Lakes during the 24 mo of recruitment, calcium and vitamin D supplementation for the entire cohort would have prevented similar to 187 persons from fracturing. Such a decrease in SFx would be associated with a significant decrease in morbidity and financial costs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据