(b) The second sentence of the sixth paragraph (right column, p. 1019) should have been: “In addition, a careful examination of spectroscopic data obtained by different techniques and an exploration of all spectroscopic characteristics (not only special features) does not support the existence of separate crystalline phases different from those of apatite, even in the samples of bone

from the youngest animals.”   (c) The sentence beginning on line 24 of the sixth paragraph (right column, p. 1019) should have been: “As already noted, these ions are not compatible with the formation of OCP crystals, and to date, no carbonate-containing OCP crystals or other non-apatitic phases have been detected.”   (d) The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph (left

column, p. 1020) selective HDAC inhibitors should have been: “We also note the following reservations we have about Selleckchem Akt inhibitor the conclusions reached by Mahamid et al. [69]: The FTIR band at 961 cm−1 is characteristic of apatite and not carbonated apatite; this band is due to phosphate ions in any HPO 4 2− or carbonate-containing apatite.””
“Dear Editors, In postmenopausal women, whether supplementation of calcium reduces bone loss or not is a contentious issue. The latest analysis by Professor Nordin [1] is a valiant effort to resolve the issue. By using a meta-analytic those approach, Professor Nordin concludes that daily calcium supplement of 100 mg could protect against bone loss for up to 4 years. This conclusion appears to be based on the mean difference in the rate of change in BMD between the control and Salubrinal clinical trial treated (calcium supplementation) groups. However, a close reading of the analysis reveals a number of methodological shortcomings that could potentially compromise the author’s

conclusion. It is well known that the rate of change in BMD varies remarkably among individuals, with the standard deviation being 2–4 times higher than the average [2, 3]. This heterogeneity is observed not just in nontreated populations, but also in randomized controlled clinical trials [4], where it ranged between 2.1% and 5%. However, in the present paper, it is reported that the standard deviation of BMD change was less than 1% for both control and treated groups. This low variability is likely due to the way the data from individual studies were analyzed. There are two important sources of variation in the rates of change in BMD: between-study and within-study variation. It is critically important to weight the within study variation, because studies with large variance (i.e. less consistent effect) should have less weight than studies with small variance (i.e. more consistent effect).