Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: Fertil Steril. 2025 Jul 30;125(1):106–117. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.382

The association of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity with osteoporosis: a pooled analysis of five cohort studies

Asociación entre infertilidad, aborto, muerte fetal y paridad con la osteoporosis: un análisis agrupado de cinco estudios de cohorte

Chen Liang a, Hsin-Fang Chung a, Debra J Anderson b, Yvonne T van der Schouw c, Nancy E Avis d, Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez e, Annette J Dobson a, Gita D Mishra a
PMCID: PMC12965745  NIHMSID: NIHMS2145605  PMID: 40749780

Abstract

Objective:

To test, among women with natural menopause, whether: infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and low parity are associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis; menopause age can partly explain their associations.

Design:

Pooled analysis of five retrospective and prospective cohorts within the International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events.

Subjects:

A total of 141,222 naturally postmenopausal women with data on fertility factors (i.e., infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, or parity), osteoporosis, and covariates (i.e., race, age at last follow-up, education level, smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index, physical activity level, and age at menarche).

Exposure:

The history of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity was self-reported.

Main Outcome Measures:

Osteoporosis was identified through surveys, hospital, death registry, primary care, or pharmaceutical data. Cox regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between fertility factors and osteoporosis, taking into account clustering within each cohort. All models were first adjusted for fixed covariates, including race, education level, smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index, physical activity level, and age at menarche, and then time-varying covariate of age at natural menopause.

Results:

There was a modestly higher risk of osteoporosis for women with a history of infertility (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.13–1.19), recurrent miscarriages (≥3; HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05–1.30), stillbirth (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10–1.17), and low parity (no live births: HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15–1.25; 1 live birth: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.14–1.16). These associations were unchanged or only slightly attenuated after additional adjustment for age at natural menopause.

Conclusion:

These female-specific factors could be considered as part of the risk assessment and may inform prevention strategies for osteoporosis.

Keywords: Infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, parity, osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a systematic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. Globally, the prevalence of osteoporosis is approximately 10.6%–11.7% among men. That doubles among women (23.1%–24.8%), and even higher among postmenopausal women (27.4%) (1, 2). Thus, understanding female-specific risk factors for osteoporosis has important implications for women and their clinicians.

Women’s reproductive history may include fertility issues, which may affect the number of live births. Infertility is a condition characterized by the failure to establish a pregnancy after 12 months of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse. Miscarriage is defined as the spontaneous loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks of pregnancy or weighing less than 400 grams. Stillbirth is defined as the death of the fetus after 20 weeks of pregnancy or weighting at or over 400 grams. Estrogen plays a critical role in ovulation, embryo implantation, and uterine lining, and is crucial for keeping the balance between osteogenesis and bone resorption (3, 4). Therefore, women with such fertility issues may experience estrogen deficiency and subsequently increased risk of osteoporosis (5–7). Among women who carry a pregnancy to live birth, a large amount of calcium is consumed during pregnancy and breastfeeding for the development of fetus and milk production, which may increase the later risk of osteoporosis (3).

Two previous studies have assessed the association of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth with osteoporosis. Neither study found an association between miscarriage and bone mineral density (BMD) (8, 9). A growing number of studies have explored the relationship between parity and osteoporosis. Some studies found that higher parity was associated with lower BMD or higher risk of osteoporosis (10–16), whereas other investigators showed opposite results (17) or no association (9, 18, 19). Most of them had relatively small sample sizes (ranging from 220 to 3,476), different definitions of parity (e.g., live birth only or live birth and stillbirth), and inconsistent classifications of parity (e.g., [≤2, 3–5, and ≥6] and [≤4 and ≥4]), which make it difficult to compare their results (9, 10, 19, 11–18). In addition, nulliparity, infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth have been shown to be associated with early menopause (before the age of 45 years), a well-established risk factor for osteoporosis (20–22). Thus, it is plausible that women with such fertility factors are more likely to experience earlier menopause and subsequent osteoporosis, but this has not been investigated. Menopause significantly increases the risk of osteoporosis because of the drop in estrogen levels. Natural menopause develops gradually over several years because ovarian estrogen production decreases, whereas surgical menopause, resulting from the removal of both ovaries, leads to a sudden reduction in ovarian estrogen production (23). Among women who have undergone hysterectomy or unilateral oophorectomy, the remaining ovary (or ovaries) can still produce estrogen. However, they may experience earlier ovarian failure, leading to an earlier decline in hormone levels (24, 25). Differences in the speed and extent of hormonal changes might influence bone loss differently. For this reason, the present study focused on women with natural menopause.

This study used data from the International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) to test the hypotheses among women with natural menopause: (1) infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and low parity are associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis; (2) menopause age can partly explain these associations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data source and participants

The InterLACE has pooled individual-level data from 27 observational studies. The present study included five cohorts from InterLACE, which were the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health 1946–51 cohort (ALSWH-mid) (26), the Australian Healthy Aging of Women’s study (HOW) (27), the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) (28), UK Biobank (29), and the Dutch Prospect-EPIC Utrecht study in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Prospect-EPIC) (30) Cohort characteristics are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of included cohorts.

Study Country Sample size Study population Baseline Last follow-up
Year Age Year Age
ALSWH-mid Australia 13,715 Women who were Australian citizens or permanent residents and born between 1946 and 1951 were randomly selected from the universal health insurance database. 1996 47.6 (46.3, 48.9) 2019 71.0 (66.0, 72.0)
HOW Australia 545 Women aged 45–60 years who were residing in the six selected rural and metropolitan postcodes within Queensland, Australia. 2001 55.0 (53.0, 57.0) 2011 62.0 (59.0, 65.0)
SWAN United State 2,594 Women who were between 42 and 52 years of age, had an intact uterus and at least one ovary, were not receiving hormone therapy, were not pregnant or lactating, and had at least one menstrual period in the 3 prior months. 1996–1997 46.0 (44.0, 48.0) 2006–2008 55.0 (53.0, 57.0)
UK Biobank United Kingdom 273,301 Women aged 40–69 years who attended one of the 22 centres across the UK between 2006 and 2010 were recruited. 2006–2010 57.0 (50.0, 63.0) 2020 69.0 (62.0, 75.0)
Prospect-EPIC Netherland 7,784 Women aged 49–70, residing in the city of Utrecht or its vicinity, who participated in the nationwide Dutch breast cancer screening program between 1993–1997. 1993–1997 55.3 (51.6, 60.6) 2015 72.3 (68.6, 77.7)
Open in a new tab

Note: ALSWH-mid = the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health 1946–51 cohort; HOW = the Australian Healthy Aging of Women Study; SWAN = the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation; Prospect-EPIC = the Dutch Prospect-EPIC Utrecht in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

The study sample included women who completed the first survey with osteoporosis data and reported natural menopause (Fig. 1). Inclusion required no missing data on at least one of the relevant fertility factors, osteoporosis, and covariates. In the analyses of miscarriage and stillbirth, women who had never been pregnant or had missing data on their pregnancy history were excluded.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart. Two studies (ALSWH and Prospect-EPIC) had data on infertility. Four studies (ALSWH, HOW, SWAN, and UK Biobank) had data on miscarriage. Two studies (SWAN and UK Biobank) had data on stillbirth. Four studies (ALSWH, SWAN, UK Biobank, and Prospect-EPIC) had data on parity. No pregnancy indicated women who had never been pregnant or who did not provide information on the history of pregnancy. Missing data indicated the participants excluded owing to missing data on corresponding reproductive factor, osteoporosis, or covariates (i.e., race, age at last follow-up, education level, smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index, physical activity level, and age at menarche). ALSWH = the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health 1946–51 cohort; HOW = the Australian Healthy Aging of Women Study; SWAN = the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation; Prospect-EPIC = the Dutch Prospect-EPIC Utrecht in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

Infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity

Data on infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity were collected at baseline or follow-up surveys (Supplemental Table 1, available online). Women were considered to have infertility if they reported the experience of failing to become pregnant for 12 months or more, had a diagnosis of infertility, fertility treatment, or a medical consultation for infertility. The history of miscarriage and stillbirth (ever or never) was self-reported. The number of miscarriages was categorized as 0, 1, 2, and ≥3, with recurrent miscarriages defined as three or more miscarriages. Parity was categorized according to the number of live births (0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4).

Menopause

Menopausal status was self-reported in multiple surveys. Natural menopause was deemed to have occurred after 12 consecutive months of amenorrhea without an obvious physiological or pathological cause (31). Age at natural menopause was calculated as the age when a woman reached natural menopause according to this definition. Among women with natural menopause, their menopause status was classified as before or after menopause. Premature and early menopause (menopause age <40 years and 40–44 years) are well-established risk factors of osteoporosis, and less is known about the risk among women experiencing menopause at a later age (22). To investigate the effect of age at natural menopause, the category of after menopause was further divided into seven groups (i.e., <40, 40–44, 45–47, 48–49, 50–51, 52–53, and ≥54).

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis was identified through survey, hospital, death registry, primary care, or pharmaceutical data (Supplemental Table 1). All included cohorts had survey data on physician-diagnosed osteoporosis. Three cohorts (i. e., ALSWH-mid, UK Biobank, and Prospect-EPIC) provided death registry and hospital data, and primary care data were available only for a subset of UK Biobank participants. Death registry, hospital, and primary care data were coded according to the International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) or ICD-10 codes. International Classification of Diseases-9 codes A733.0 (osteoporosis), A733.1 (pathologic fracture), and ICD-10 codes M80 and M81 (osteoporosis with and without pathologic fracture) were used to identify osteoporosis. Cohort ALSWH-mid additionally had data on medications, and the selected items for osteoporosis were presented in Supplemental Table 1. Women were classified as having osteoporosis if a diagnosis was recorded in any of the above data sources. Age at the earliest record of osteoporosis was taken as age at osteoporosis.

Covariates

Information on race (White, Asian, and others), education level (no formal qualification, year 10, year 12, diploma, and university), smoking status (never, past, and current smoker), alcohol intake (nondrinker, monthly, weekly, and daily drinker), body mass index (BMI; <18.5, 18.5–22.9, 23.0–27.4, and ≥27.5 kg/m2 for Asian women; <18.5, 18.5–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥30.0 kg/m2 for White and other women), physical activity level (sedentary, low, moderate, and vigorous), and age at menarche (≤11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 years) were collected at cohort entrance. Physical activity level was categorized on the basis of metabolic equivalent of task minutes per day (<40, 40–<600, 600–<1200, and ≥1200 metabolic equivalent of task minutes per day) in all cohorts except HOW, where physical activity levels were self-rated into four levels.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages, and continuous variables as medians and quartiles. Cox regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity with osteoporosis. Survival time was age at osteoporosis or age at last update of data, whichever came first. All models were adjusted for fixed covariates, including race, education level, smoking status, alcohol intake, BMI, physical activity level, and age at menarche. Cohort difference was taken into account by including cohort as a fixed covariate, and robust variance estimates were used to account for within-cohort correlation.

To explore whether the age at natural menopause played a role in the associations between fertility factors and osteoporosis, all models were further adjusted for age at natural menopause as a time-varying covariate. If the effects of fertility factors were attenuated, this could imply that part of their association with osteoporosis was mediated by age at menopause.

Several sensitivity analyses were conducted. First, ICD-10 code M82 (osteoporosis in diseases classified elsewhere) was additionally used to identify osteoporosis. Second, analyses were stratified by hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use at baseline, because HRT is often prescribed for women with early menopause (<45 years) and may reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women (32). Third, analyses were restricted to women who did not have diabetes, asthma, or rheumatoid arthritis before the age of 40 years. Women with these conditions were at a higher risk of osteoporosis, and the conditions were also associated with fertility issues (33–39). Similarly, the analyses were restricted to women who had not experienced breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, or cervical cancer, given their influence on BMD through hormonal imbalance and treatment (40, 41). Fourth, E-values were calculated to assess the potential influence of unmeasured confounding (42, 43). Fifth, multiple imputation (10 times) using fully conditional specification was employed to impute missing data on covariates. Imputed datasets were used to assess the robustness of the findings to missing data. Sixth, a causal mediation analysis was performed. A linear regression model was used to estimate the association between fertility factor (exposure) and age at natural menopause (mediator), and a Weibull parametric survival model was used to estimate the association between exposure and outcome (osteoporosis), adjusting for age at natural menopause. All models included the fixed effects for cohort and were adjusted for the same covariates as the main analysis. Mediation effects were estimated using the mediate function in R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria), under the assumption of no unmeasured confounding between fertility factor, age at natural menopause, and osteoporosis. Finally, a two-stage meta-analysis with random effects was conducted.

Supplementary analyses were conducted among women with hysterectomy or unilateral oophorectomy; among women with surgical menopause (bilateral oophorectomy); and among women with natural or surgical menopause. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), and mediation analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.2. Computer codes are available from the corresponding author on request.

Ethics approval

InterLACE used nonidentifiable data from existing studies and received ethics exemption from the University of Queensland (2024/HE000390). Each study in the InterLACE received ethics approval from the relevant National Health Service research ethics committee, the Human Research Ethics Committee or the Institutional Review Board at each study institution.

RESULTS

Overall, 141,222 women were included (Fig. 1). They were at a median (quartiles) age of 59.0 years (54.0, 63.0) at cohort baseline and were followed up to the age of 72.0 years (68.0, 76.0). By the end of follow-up, 16,725 (11.8%) women developed osteoporosis. Women who were older, less educated, had lower BMI and lower physical activity level at baseline, were more likely to develop osteoporosis (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Characteristics of included women

Osteoporosis, N (%)
Never Ever
Characteristics N = 124,497 N = 16,725
Age at cohort entrance, median (IQR)
59.0 (54.0 ,63.0) 61.0 (54.0 ,65.0)
Age at last follow-up, median (IQR)
72.0 (67.7 ,76.0) 74.0 (71.0 ,78.0)
Race, N (%)
 White 119,148 (88.1) 16,166 (11.9)
 Asian 2,535 (88.4) 333 (11.6)
 Othersa 2,814 (92.6) 226 (7.4)
Education level, N (%)
 No formal qualification 974 (71.3) 393 (28.7)
 Year 10 57,946 (88.2) 7,739 (11.8)
 Year 12 16,704 (87.4) 2,417 (12.6)
 Diploma 9,470 (84.6) 1,725 (15.4)
 University 39,403 (89.9) 4,451 (10.1)
Smoking status, N (%)
 Never smoker 72,688 (88.6) 9,330 (11.4)
 Past smoker 41,511 (88.1) 5,605 (11.9)
 Current smoker 10,298 (85.2) 1,790 (14.8)
Alcohol intake, N (%)
 Nondrinker 10,982 (85.3) 1,891 (14.7)
 Monthly 32,636 (87.5) 4,643 (12.5)
 Weekly 57,499 (89.3) 6,892 (10.7)
 Daily 23,380 (87.6) 3,299 (12.4)
Body mass index, kg/m2; N (%)
 <18.5 874 (71.3) 351 (28.7)
 18.5–24.9 48,409 (84.8) 8,658 (15.2)
 25.0–29.9 47,373 (89.8) 5,361 (10.2)
 ≥30 27,841 (92.2) 2,355 (7.8)
Physical activity level, N (%)
 Sedentary 2,556 (81.6) 576 (18.4)
 Low 26,481 (87.0) 3,946 (13.0)
 Moderate 25,550 (88.6) 3,302 (11.4)
 Vigorous 69,910 (88.7) 8,901 (11.3)
Age at menarche, N (%)
 ≤11 24,050 (89.7) 2,766 (10.3)
 12 24,240 (88.7) 3,074 (11.3)
 13 31,105 (88.1) 4,183 (11.9)
 14 24,810 (87.8) 3,457 (12.2)
 ≥15 20,292 (86.2) 3,245 (13.8)
History of infertilityb, N (%)
 Never 7,817 (70.4) 3,287 (29.6)
 Ever 1,167 (69.1) 523 (30.9)
History of miscarriageb, N (%)
 Never 81,604 (88.3) 10,796 (11.7)
 Ever 25,786 (87.6) 3,652 (12.4)
Number of miscarriages, N (%)
 0 81,517 (88.3) 10,778 (11.7)
 1 18,649 (87.9) 2,579 (12.1)
 2 4,581 (87.4) 662 (12.6)
 ≥3 2,318 (86.1) 374 (13.9)
History of stillbirthb, N (%)
 Never 100,472 (89.6) 11,697 (10.4)
 Ever 3,229 (87.8) 447 (12.2)
Number of live birthsb, N (%)
 0 21,251 (88.6) 2,744 (11.4)
 1 15,603 (88.1) 2,099 (11.9)
 2 55,832 (88.8) 7,014 (11.2)
 3 23,104 (87.5) 3,312 (12.5)
 ≥4 8,449 (85.4) 1,445 (14.6)
Age at natural menopause, N (%)
 <40 1,740 (79.7) 443 (20.3)
 40-<45 8,080 (83.9) 1,551 (16.1)
 45-<48 12,848 (86.2) 2,050 (13.8)
 48-<50 15,094 (88.2) 2,016 (11.8)
 50-<52 29,737 (88.2) 3,964 (11.8)
 52-<54 25,131 (89.1) 3,063 (10.9)
 ≥54 31,867 (89.8) 3,638 (10.2)
Open in a new tab

Note: Body mass index was categorized as <18.5, 18.5–22.9, 23.0–27.4, and ≥27.5 kg/m2 among Asian women, and divided as <18.5, 18.5–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥30.0 kg/m 2 among other women. IQR = interquartile range.

a

Race category of others included Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Black, Aboriginal Australian, Pacific Islander, Hawaiian, and Native American.

b

Among the included women, 12,794 women, 121,838 women, 115,845 women, and 140,853 women having data on infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and number of live births, respectively.

Infertility

Women with infertility were at 16% higher risk of osteoporosis compared with women without infertility (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.13–1.19; Table 3). The association for infertility was not attenuated by additional adjustment for age at natural menopause (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.13–1.19).

TABLE 3.

The associations of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity with osteoporosis among women experiencing natural menopause.

Characteristics Osteoporosis Main analysis Additionally adjusted for menopause age
N (%) Crude model Adjusted model
Infertility
 Never 3,287 (29.6) Ref. Ref. Ref.
 Ever 523 (30.9) 1.18 (1.15, 1.21) 1.16 (1.13, 1.19) 1.16 (1.13, 1.19)
Miscarriage
 Never 10,796 (11.7) Ref. Ref. Ref.
 Ever 3,652 (12.4) 1.05 (1.03, 1.07) 1.06 (1.04, 1.08) 1.06 (1.04, 1.08)
No. of miscarriages
 0 10,778 (11.7) Ref. Ref. Ref.
 1 2,579 (12.1) 1.03 (1.01, 1.06) 1.04 (1.02, 1.07) 1.04 (1.02, 1.07)
 2 662 (12.6) 1.07 (0.99, 1.16) 1.07 (0.98, 1.16) 1.06 (0.98, 1.15)
 ≥3 374 (13.9) 1.18 (1.08, 1.29) 1.17 (1.05, 1.30) 1.15 (1.03, 1.29)
Stillbirth
 Never 11,697 (10.4) Ref. Ref. Ref.
 Ever 447 (12.2) 1.11 (1.08, 1.15) 1.14 (1.10, 1.17) 1.13 (1.10, 1.16)
No. of live births
 0 2,744 (11.4) 1.22 (1.15, 1.29) 1.20 (1.15, 1.25) 1.16 (1.12, 1.20)
 1 2,099 (11.9) 1.17 (1.14, 1.19) 1.15 (1.14, 1.16) 1.13 (1.12, 1.13)
 2 7,014 (11.2) Ref. Ref. Ref.
 3 3,312 (12.5) 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) 1.01 (0.99, 1.03)
 ≥4 1,445 (14.6) 0.98 (0.88, 1.10) 1.02 (0.92, 1.13) 1.02 (0.92, 1.13)
Open in a new tab

Note: All data are presented as hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals).

Crude model: Cox regression models included cohort as a covariate, and robust variance estimators were used to account for within-cohort correlation.

Adjusted model: Cox regression models was additionally adjusted for fixed covariates (i.e., race [White, Asian, and other], education level [no formal qualification, year10, year 12, diploma, and university], smoking status [never smoker, past smoker, and current smoker], alcohol intake [nondrinker, monthly, weekly, and daily drinker], body mass index [<18.5, 18.5–22.9, 23.0–27.4, and ≥27.5 kg/m2 for Asian women; <18.5, 18.5–24.9, 25.0–29.9, and ≥30.0 kg/m2 for other women], physical activity level [sedentary, low, moderate, and vigorous], and age at menarche [≤11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 years]).

Menopause age (before menopause, menopause age<40, 40–44, 45–47, 48–49, 50–51, 52–53, ≥54 years) was included as time-varying covariate.

Miscarriage

Among women who had ever been pregnant, a history of miscarriage (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.08), especially recurrent miscarriages (≥3; HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05–1.30), was associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis. The effect of recurrent miscarriages was attenuated slightly after additional adjustment for age at natural menopause (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.03–1.29; Table 3).

Stillbirth

Among women who had ever been pregnant, women with stillbirth were at 14% higher risk of osteoporosis, compared with women without stillbirth (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10–1.17), and this changed very little after adjustment for age at natural menopause (HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10–1.16; Table 3).

Parity

Low parity (no live births: HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15–1.25; one live birth: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.14–1.16) was associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis compared with women with two live births (Table 3). Additional adjustment for age at natural menopause had little influence on the observed association for low parity (no live births: HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.12–1.20; one live birth: HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.12–1.13).

Sensitivity analyses

Adding ICD code M82 to identify osteoporosis revealed similar results with the main analysis (Supplemental Table 2). After stratifying analyses by HRT use, the results remained consistent with the main analysis, although the 95% CIs became wider because of a smaller sample size (Supplemental Table 3). Excluding women who had diabetes, asthma, or rheumatoid arthritis before the age of 40 years did not change the results (Supplemental Table 4–6). Excluding women with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or cervical cancer showed similar results (Supplemental Table 7). E-values for infertility, recurrent miscarriages, stillbirth, and low parity ranged from 1.53 to 1.69 for the point estimates. These values suggested that to bring the observed association to the null, an unmeasured confounder would need to be associated with both the reproductive factor and osteoporosis with an HR of at least this magnitude (Supplemental Table 8). Estimates from the imputed datasets had almost no changes from the main analysis (Supplemental Table 9). In the causal mediation analysis, there was little evidence that age at natural menopause mediated the association between the fertility factors of interest and osteoporosis. (Supplemental Table 10) Two-stage meta-analysis with random effects revealed similar results with the main analysis, although the 95% CIs for recurrent miscarriage and no live births became much wider (Supplemental Fig. 1–4, available online).

In supplementary analysis, similar results were observed among women with natural or surgical menopause, although the associations with infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and low parity (no or one live birth) were stronger among women with surgical menopause (Supplemental Table 11–12). Their associations were attenuated slightly after additional adjustment for age at menopause. Among women with hysterectomy or unilateral oophorectomy, the risk of osteoporosis was slightly elevated among women with low parity, and possibly increased among women with recurrent miscarriages (Supplemental Table 13).

DISCUSSION

Principal findings

Among naturally postmenopausal women, a history of infertility, recurrent miscarriages (≥3), stillbirth, or low parity (≤1) was associated with the occurrence of osteoporosis. Additional adjustment for age at natural menopause had almost no or little influence on the observed associations.

Results in the context of what is known

Two previous studies assessed the relationship between fertility issues (e.g., infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth) and osteoporosis or BMD. In a cross-sectional study with 392 British women (aged 50–54 years), there was no clear association between the number of miscarriages and BMD at lumbar spine (linear regression correlation coefficient r = 0.03) or femoral neck (r = 0.01) (8). Another cross-sectional study, enrolling 3,476 Dutch women (aged 46–57 years), found an association between the number of miscarriages and lumbar spine BMD among premenopausal women (linear regression coefficient b = 0.0076, SE = 0.0036, P= .033), but not among postmenopausal women (b = 0.0023, SE = 0.0056, P= .679) (9). In the present study, 141,222 naturally postmenopausal women were enrolled and followed up to the age of 72.0 years (68.0, 76.0). With a large sample size and sufficient follow-up period, the present study indicated an association between miscarriage, particularly recurrent miscarriages, and osteoporosis among women with natural menopause. Moreover, the present study clarified the relationships of stillbirth and infertility with osteoporosis among women with natural menopause. Fertility issues might be linked to osteoporosis through estrogen and progestogen deficiency, which could contribute to ovulation and implantation issues, and an imbalance between osteogenesis and bone resorption (5, 7, 44–47). Additionally, among women with fertility issues, pre-existing and subsequent conditions (e.g., hyperthyroidism, hyperprolactinemia, unstable diabetes, and vitamin D insufficiency) could lead to bone loss (48–51).

Despite a number of studies on parity and osteoporosis, results are inconclusive. Three cross-sectional studies enrolling postmenopausal women from the United States, Iran, and Jordan found that parity ≥6 was associated with higher odds of osteoporosis (≥6 vs. 1–2: odds ratio [OR] = 3.88, 95% CI: 1.64–9.18; ≥6 vs. ≤2: OR = 4.45, 95% CI: 1.69–11.74; and ≥6 vs. ≤2: OR = 1.6, P= .027) (10, 11, 14). In another Korean study, parity = 2 (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.10–5.50) and parity≥3 (OR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.30–7.30) were associated with the occurrence of osteoporosis, compared with women with one live birth (12). In support of these findings, studies by Yang et al. (11) and Panahi N et al. (15) revealed a relationship between high parity and low lumbar spine BMD (≥6 vs. 1–2: b = −0.072, 95% CI: −0.125, −0.018; >4 vs. ≤4: b = −0.0223, P= .012). However, two other cross-sectional studies did not detect any association between parity and osteoporosis (≥3 vs. ≤2: OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.51–1.92; per additional child: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.29–2.10) (13, 18). Another study by Mori et al. (19) suggested no relationship between parity and lumbar spine BMD (b = −0.026, 95% CI: −0.058, 0.006) or femoral neck BMD (b = 0.0002, 95% CI: −0.025, 0.025). Previous studies treated parity differently (continuous or categorical), and classified the number of live births inconsistently, which might contribute to the divergent results. In the present study, parity was classified as (0, 1, 2 [ref.], 3, and ≥4) to assess the effects of low and high parity. Low parity (0 or 1 live birth) was associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis among women with natural menopause. Women with low parity were more likely to have fertility issues and earlier natural menopause (20). Among them, estrogen deficiency in the early reproductive stage and estrogen reduction during menopause could lead to lower peak bone mass and earlier accelerated bone loss (45).

Clinical and research implications

In clinical practice, health care providers should be aware of the potentially increased risk of osteoporosis among women with these reproductive experiences. This information might inform earlier detection and prevention strategies.

Future studies with data on BMD and osteoporotic fractures would provide more comprehensive information about the relationships between female reproductive factors and bone health. Besides, studies are also needed to assess whether taking into account these female reproductive factors could improve risk assessment for osteoporosis.

Strengths and limitations

The large sample size provided sufficient power to detect the associations between uncommon reproductive factors (e.g., recurrent miscarriages) and osteoporosis, which broadens the knowledge on female bone health. Nevertheless, there were several limitations. First, data on infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and parity were self-reported, which may introduce recall bias. Previous studies have shown that self-reported infertility (sensitivity = 72.0%, specificity = 70.0%), pregnancy loss (sensitivity = 73.5%, specificity = 99.4%), and parity (weighted kappa = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.97) are generally reliable, whereas stillbirth (sensitivity = 100.0%, specificity = 30.0%) may be overreported (52–55). Misclassification due to recall is likely to be nondifferential with respect to osteoporosis, which might bias observed associations toward null (56). Future studies combining self-reported data with other sources (e.g., patient registries and administrative data) may provide more accurate reproductive histories. In addition, the underlying causes of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth were not consistently collected across the pooled dataset and could not be accounted for in analysis. For instance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been linked to lower BMD among women with low BMI (57, 58). Therefore, the relationship between infertility and osteoporosis may vary depending on the presence of PCOS. However, data on PCOS were only available for 38.1% of the women with infertility data. Among them, only 1.84% reported PCOS (possibly because of underreporting). Additionally, this study could not distinguish between female and male infertility. Misclassifying women who were not biologically infertile as infertile would dilute the observed association between infertility and osteoporosis. Nevertheless, males are solely responsible for 20%–30% of infertility cases, with the majority involving female or male-female factors (34). Our findings are likely to reflect the predominant contribution of female or combined female-male factors. Second, this study lacked detailed data on HRT (e.g., type, dose, and duration). Therefore, the effect of HRT on osteoporosis could not be fully explored, which is particularly for women who experienced surgical menopause. Hormone replacement therapy is commonly prescribed to women with surgical menopause to mitigate sudden hormone loss. Combining data from women with natural or surgical menopause may bias the association with osteoporosis because of insufficient adjustment for HRT use (23, 59). Third, although multiple data sources were used to identify women with osteoporosis, some data sources (e.g., pharmaceutical data and primary care data) were only available for part of the participants (Supplemental Table 14). In addition, participants from some cohorts were followed up to a relatively young age, which was not enough for the occurrence of osteoporosis (Supplemental Table 14). These factors may have led to a lower prevalence of osteoporosis in the pooled data than reported elsewhere (1, 2). Analysis by osteoporosis severity was not conducted, as relevant data (e.g. BMD measurements and fragility fracture history) were unavailable. The outcome was based on self-report or physician diagnosis, which does not allow differentiation between mild and severe osteoporosis. Future studies with such data may provide deeper insight into the association. Fourth, lifestyle factors were not consistently or repeatedly collected across all cohorts. Survey intervals varied from 1 to 10 years among pooled cohorts, and loss to follow-up led to a high proportion of missing data. Therefore, lifestyle changes were not included in the analysis. Fifth, there might be unmeasured confounder(s) (e.g., dietary patterns). E-values indicated that the observed associations might be moderately robust to unmeasured confounding. For example, the western dietary pattern has been modestly associated with osteoporosis (relative risk = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.02–2.10), but there is no clear evidence on the association with infertility or pregnancy loss (60–62). It is unlikely that dietary pattern alone could account for the observed effects, given the E-values. However, residual confounding remains a possibility, and future studies with more comprehensive lifestyle data are needed. Finally, selection bias might exist. There were 20,619 (12.7%) women with natural menopause who were excluded because of missing data. Excluded women were more likely to be less educated, physically inactive, and obese than those included (Supplemental Table 15). However, multiple imputations suggested the findings would be robust to missing data (Supplemental Table 9).

CONCLUSION

Among women with natural menopause, a history of infertility, recurrent miscarriages, stillbirth, or low parity was associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis. Age at natural menopause had almost no or little influence on the observed associations. The present study extends current knowledge on female-specific risk factors of osteoporosis, which could be incorporated into the risk assessment and prevention of osteoporosis.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary file

Supplemental data for this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.382.

Acknowledgments

The data on which this research is based were drawn from five observational studies. The research included data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH), the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Queensland, Australia. The authors are grateful to the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care for funding and to the women who provided the survey data. The authors acknowledge the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care for providing PBS data and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) as the integrating authority. They also acknowledge the assistance of the Data Linkage Unit at the AIHW for undertaking the data linkage to the National Death Index (NDI). They acknowledge the following institutions:

  • The Centre for Health Record Linkage (CHeReL), NSW Ministry of Health and ACT Health, for the NSW Admitted Patients, and Emergency Department; and the ACT Admitted Patient Care, and Emergency Department.

  • Queensland Health as the source for Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient and Emergency Data Collections; and the Statistical Analysis and Linkage Unit (Queensland Health) for the provision of data linkage.

  • SA NT DataLink, SA Health, and Northern Territory Department of Health, for the SA Public Hospital Separations, SA Public Hospital Emergency Department, NT Public Hospital Inpatient Activity, and NT Public Hospital Emergency Department.

  • The Department of Health Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Data Linkage Unit, for the Public Hospital Admitted Patient Episodes and Tasmanian Emergency Department Presentations.

  • Victorian Department of Health as the source of the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset and the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset; and the Centre for Victorian Data Linkage (Victorian Department of Health) for the provision of data linkage.

  • The Department of Health Western Australia, including the Data Linkage Branch, and the WA Hospital Morbidity and Emergency Department Data Collections.

Healthy Ageing of Women Study (HOW) was supported by the Queensland University of Technology Early Career Research Grant and the JSPS Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research.

Prospect-EPIC Utrecht is financed by the European Commission–Europe Against Cancer: WHO AEP/90/05; the Dutch Ministry of Health; the Dutch Prevention Funds; the LK Research Funds; and the WCRF funds (WCRF 98A04 and WCRF 2000/30).

This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource under Application 80681. The UK Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation (BHF), and Cancer Research UK also provide core funding to the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit at Oxford University for the project.

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) has grant support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) (Grants U01NR004061, U01AG012505, U01AG012 535, U01AG012531, U01AG012539, U01AG012546, U01AG012553, U01AG012554, U01AG012495, and U19AG 063720). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIA, NINR, ORWH, or the NIH.

Clinical Centers: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Carrie Karvonen-Gutierrez, PI 2021–present, Siobán Harlow, PI 2011–2021, MaryFran Sowers, PI 1994–2011; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA: Sherri-Ann Burnett-Bowie, PI 2020–Present; Joel Finkelstein, PI 1999–2020; Robert Neer, PI 1994–1999; Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL: Imke Janssen, PI 2020–Present; Howard Kravitz, PI 2009–2020; Lynda Powell, PI 1994–2009; University of California, Davis/Kaiser: Elaine Waetjen and Monique Hedderson, PIs 2020–Present; Ellen Gold, PI 1994–2020; University of California, Los Angeles: Arun Karlamangla, PI 2020–Present; Gail Greendale, PI 1994–2020; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY–Carol Derby, PI 2011–present, Rachel Wildman, PI 2010–2011; Nanette Santoro, PI 2004–2010; University of Medicine and Dentistry: New Jersey Medical School, Newark: Gerson Weiss, PI 1994–2004; and the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA: Rebecca Thurston, PI 2020–Present; Karen Matthews, PI 1994–2020.

NIH Program Office: National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD: Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo 2020–present; Chhanda Dutta 2016–present; Winifred Rossi 2012–2016; Sherry Sherman 1994–2012; Marcia Ory 1994–2001; National Institute of Nursing Research, Bethesda, MD: Program Officers.

Central Laboratory: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Daniel McConnell (Central Ligand Assay Satellite Services).

Coordinating Center: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA: Maria Mori Brooks, PI 2012–present; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell, PI 2001–2012; New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA: Sonja McKinlay, PI 1995–2001.

Steering Committee: Susan Johnson, Current Chair, Chris Gallagher, Former Chair.

All study teams would like to thank the participants for volunteering their time to be involved in the respective studies. The findings and views in this paper are not those of the original studies or their respective funding agencies.

Supported by the grant (APP1027196) for project International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Centres of Research Excellence (APP1153420). G.D.M. is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Fellow (APP2009577).

Footnotes

Declaration of Interests

C.L. has nothing to disclose. H.-F.C. has nothing to disclose. D.J.A. has nothing to disclose. Y.T.van.der.S. has nothing to disclose. N.E.A. has nothing to disclose. C.A.K.-G. reports funding from National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; funding from National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. A.J.D. has nothing to disclose. G.D.M. is supported by the National Health and Research Council Investigator grant; as the Co-President of the World Congress of Endometriosis expenses for attending the conference was supported by the World Endometriosis society; Chair, Queensland Heart Foundation, Member, National Women’s Health Advisory Council.

CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement

Chen Liang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Hsin-Fang Chung: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Debra J. Anderson: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Yvonne T. van der Schouw: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Nancy E. Avis: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Carrie A. Karvonen-Gutierrez: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Annette J. Dobson: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Gita D. Mishra: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for this study design was followed.

The International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events (InterLACE) data are not freely available. The anonymized dataset is governed by a Collaborative Research Agreement among several institutions. Those interested in collaborating on the project can contact the scientific committee at interlace@uq.edu.au.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Xiao P-L, Cui A-Y, Hsu C-J, Peng R, Jiang N, Xu X-H, et al. Global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis according to the World Health Organization diagnostic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2022;33:2137–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Salari N, Darvishi N, Bartina Y, Larti M, Kiaei A, Hemmati M, et al. Global prevalence of osteoporosis among the world older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16:669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wei Y, Sun Y. Aging of the bone. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018;1086:189–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Albrecht ED, Aberdeen GW, Pepe GJ. The role of estrogen in the maintenance of primate pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:432–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weiss RV, Clapauch R. Female infertility of endocrine origin. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol 2014;58:144–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dimitriadis E, Menkhorst E, Saito S, Kutteh WH, Brosens JJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2020;6:98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deng W, Sun R, Du J, Wu X, Ma L, Wang M, et al. Prediction of miscarriage in first trimester by serum estradiol, progesterone and β-human chorionic gonadotropin within 9 weeks of gestation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022;22:112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hamed HM, Purdie DW, Steel SA, Howey S. The relation between bone mineral density and early pregnancy loss. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:946–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hagemans MLC, van der Schouw YT, de Kleijn MJJ, van Staveren WA, Pop VJM, Leusink GL, et al. Indicators for the total duration of premenopausal endogenous estrogen exposure in relation to BMD. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2163–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Younesi Asl L, Kashanian M, Najmi Z, Mahdavi A, SafarpourLima Z. Risk factors of osteoporosis and osteopenia in postmenopausal women based on the L2–L4 BMD T score of the lumbar spine: a study in Iran. Gynecol Endocrinol 2023;39:2205959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yang Y, Wang S, Cong H. Association between parity and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. BMC Womens Health 2022;22:87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Seo E, Lee Y, Kim HC. Association between parity and low bone density among postmenopausal Korean women. J Prev Med Public Heal 2021;54:284–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yan G, Huang Y, Cao H, Wu J, Jiang N, Cao X. Association of breastfeeding and postmenopausal osteoporosis in Chinese women: a community-based retrospective study. BMC Womens Health 2019;19:110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hyassat D, Alyan T, Jaddou H, Ajlouni KM. Prevalence and risk factors of osteoporosis among Jordanian postmenopausal women attending the National Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Genetics in Jordan. Biores Open Access 2017;6:85–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Panahi N, Ostovar A, Fahimfar N, Gharibzadeh S, Shafiee G, Heshmat R, et al. Grand multiparity associations with low bone mineral density and degraded trabecular bone pattern. Bone Reports 2021;14:101071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tsvetov G, Levy S, Benbassat C, Shraga-Slutzky I, Hirsch D. Influence of number of deliveries and total breast-feeding time on bone mineral density in premenopausal and young postmenopausal women. Maturitas 2014;77:249–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chang HK, Chang D-G, Myong J-P, Kim J-H, Lee S-J, Lee YS, et al. Bone mineral density among Korean females aged 20–50 years: influence of age at menarche (The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008–2011). Osteoporos Int 2017;28:2129–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee EN. Effects of parity and breastfeeding duration on bone density in post-menopausal women. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2019;13:161–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mori T, Ishii S, Greendale GA, Cauley JA, Ruppert K, Crandall CJ, et al. Parity, lactation, bone strength, and 16-year fracture risk in adult women: findings from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Bone 2015;73:160–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mishra GD, Pandeya N, Dobson AJ, Chung H-F, Anderson D, Kuh D, et al. Early menarche, nulliparity and the risk for premature and early natural menopause. Hum Reprod 2017;32:679–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Liang C, Chung H-F, Dobson AJ, Cade JE, Greenwood DC, Hayashi K, et al. Is there a link between infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, and premature or early menopause? Results from pooled analyses of 9 cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023;229:47.e1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gallagher JC. Effect of early menopause on bone mineral density and fractures. Menopause 2007;14:567–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pillay OC, Manyonda I The surgical menopause. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2022;81:111–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Siddle N, Sarrel P, Whitehead M. The effect of hysterectomy on the age at ovarian failure: identification of a subgroup of women with premature loss of ovarian function and literature review. Fertil Steril 1987;47:94–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brennand EA, Scime NV, Manion R, Huang B. Unilateral oophorectomy and age at natural menopause: a longitudinal community-based cohort study. BJOG 2025;132:337–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lee C, Dobson AJ, Brown WJ, Bryson L, Byles J, Warner-Smith P, et al. Cohort profile: the Australian longitudinal study on women’s health. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:987–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Anderson D Healthy aging of women (HOW) study of rural and urban areas of south-east Queensland questionnaires. Available at: https://researchdatafinder.qut.edu.au/display/n6578. Accessed February 5, 2024.
  • 28.Sowers MF, Crawford SL, Sternfeld B, Morganstein D, Gold EB, Greendale GA, et al. SWAN: a multicenter, multiethnic, community-based cohort study of women and the menopausal transition. In: Lobo RA, Kelsey JL, Marcus R, editors. Menopause: Biology and pathobiology. San Diego, California: Academic Press; 2000:175–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Boker LK, van Noord PA, van der Schouw YT, Koot NV, Bueno de Mesquita HB, Riboli E, et al. Prospect-EPIC Utrecht: study design and characteristics of the cohort population. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur J Epidemiol 2001;17:1047–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Greendale GA, Lee NP, Arriola ER. The menopause. Lancet 1999;353:571–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hickey M, Elliott J, Davison SL. Hormone replacement therapy. BMJ 2012;344:e763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ebeling PR, Nguyen HH, Aleksova J, Vincent AJ, Wong P, Milat F. Secondary osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 2022;43:240–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018;62:2–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cundy T, Gamble G, Neale L, Elder R, McPherson P, Henley P, et al. Differing causes of pregnancy loss in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2603–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, et al. Lancet Ending Preventable Stillbirths Series study group; Lancet Stillbirth Epidemiology investigator group. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet 2016;387:587–603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tidemandsen C, Egerup P, Ulrik CS, Backer V, Westergaard D, Mikkelsen AP, et al. Asthma is associated with pregnancy loss and recurrent pregnancy loss: a nationwide cohort study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2022;10:2326–32.e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gade EJ, Thomsen SF, Lindenberg S, Kyvik KO, Lieberoth S, Backer V. Asthma affects time to pregnancy and fertility: a register-based twin study. Eur Respir J 2014;43:1077–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Provost M, Eaton JL, Clowse MEB. Fertility and infertility in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2014;26:308–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Shapiro CL. Osteoporosis: a long-term and late-effect of breast cancer treatments. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:3094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lee JE, Park CY, Lee E, Il Ji Y. Effect of gynecological cancer and its treatment on bone mineral density and the risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2020;63:470–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Haneuse S, VanderWeele TJ, Arterburn D. Using the E-Value to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding in observational studies. J Am Med Assoc 2019;321:602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Findlay JK, Liew SH, Simpson ER, Korach KS. Estrogen signaling in the regulation of female reproductive functions. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2010;198:29–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Li L, Wang Z. Ovarian aging and osteoporosis. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018;1086:199–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Regan L, Rai R. Epidemiology and the medical causes of miscarriage. Bailliere’s Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:839–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cable JK, Grider MH. Physiology, progesterone. Treasure Island, Florida: StatPearls Publishing; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mintziori G, Kita M, Duntas L, Goulis DG. Consequences of hyperthyroidism in male and female fertility: pathophysiology and current management. J Endocrinol Invest 2016;39:849–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Higham C, Abrahamsen B. Regulation of bone mass in endocrine diseases including diabetes. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2022;36:101614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tamblyn JA, Pilarski NSP, Markland AD, Marson EJ, Devall A, Hewison M, et al. Vitamin D and miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2022;118:111–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lindqvist PG, Gissler M, Essén B. Is there a relation between stillbirth and low levels of vitamin D in the population? A bi-national follow-up study of vitamin D fortification. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023;23:359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kristensen P, Irgens LM. Maternal reproductive history: a registry based comparison of previous pregnancy data derived from maternal recall and data obtained during the actual pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000;79:471–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jung AM, Missmer SA, Cramer DW, Ginsburg ES, Terry KL, Vitonis AF, et al. Self-reported infertility diagnoses and treatment history approximately 20 years after fertility treatment initiation. Fertil Res Pract 2021;7:7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hure AJ, Chojenta CL, Powers JR, Byles JE, Loxton D. Validity and reliability of stillbirth data using linked self-reported and administrative datasets. J Epidemiol 2015;25:30–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lucas R, Azevedo A, Barros H. Self-reported data on reproductive variables were reliable among postmenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:945–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Whitcomb BW, Naimi AI. Things don’t always go as expected: the example of nondifferential misclassification of exposure—bias and error. Am J Epidemiol 2020;189:365–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Piovezan JM, Premaor MO, Comim FV. Negative impact of polycystic ovary syndrome on bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:634–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Rissetti G, Piovezan JM, Premaor MO, Comim FV. Contrasting bone profiles in PCOS are related to BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2024;109:e1911–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sarrel PM, Sullivan SD, Nelson LM. Hormone replacement therapy in young women with surgical primary ovarian insufficiency. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1580–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Park S-J, Joo S-E, Min H, Park JK, Kim Y, Kim SS, et al. Dietary patterns and osteoporosis risk in postmenopausal Korean women. Osong Public Heal Res Perspect 2012;3:199–205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Toledo E, Lopez-del Burgo C, Ruiz-Zambrana A, Donazar M, Navarro-Blasco I, Martínez-Gonzalez MA, et al. Dietary patterns and difficulty conceiving: a nested case–control study. Fertil Steril 2011;96:1149–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gaskins AJ, Rich-Edwards JW, Hauser R, Williams PL, Gillman MW, Penzias A, et al. Prepregnancy dietary patterns and risk of pregnancy loss. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;100:1166–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file
NIHMS2145605-supplement-Supplementary_file.docx (237.9KB, docx)

RESOURCES