Osteoboost is a wearable vibrating belt that has generated a great deal of interest among women with low bone density. It is the first non-drug, prescription-only device cleared by the FDA specifically for the treatment of osteopenia in postmenopausal women. It has been featured in TIME, Forbes, Oprah Daily, and Endocrine News, and has been named a TIME Best Invention of 2025.
But does it actually work? And more importantly, is it the right choice for you?
In this review, I break down the clinical trial results, the expert criticism the study has received, how much Osteoboost costs, who it is (and isn’t) designed for, and how it fits into a comprehensive bone health strategy. My goal is to give you the evidence-based, balanced analysis you need to make an informed decision.
What is Osteoboost?
Osteoboost is a Class II medical device made by Osteoboost Health, Inc. (formerly Bone Health Technologies), based in Redwood City, California. It is a belt worn low around the hips that delivers calibrated low-amplitude, high-frequency vibration (20–40 Hz) directly to the sacrum, the flat bone at the base of the spine, just above the buttocks. From there, the vibration is transmitted to the lumbar spine and hips.
The device is worn for 30 minutes per day while standing or walking. It can be used during light daily activities such as cooking, getting dressed, or doing the dishes. It should not be used while sitting, lying down, or during high-impact exercise.
Before each session, Osteoboost performs an automatic pressure check and calibration to ensure the belt is positioned correctly and delivering the intended dose. It has an internal lithium-ion battery and a companion iPhone app (Android coming soon) for tracking sessions.
The device comes in three sizes based on hip circumference: Small (32–40 inches), Medium (40–48 inches), and Large (48–56 inches). The device comes with a 1-year manufacturer’s warranty and is expected to last at least 3 years.
How Does Osteoboost Differ from Low Intensity Vibration Platforms?
If you are familiar with low intensity vibration (LiV) platforms, such as Marodyne LiV and Juvent, you may be wondering how Osteoboost compares. There are important differences.
Low intensity platforms deliver vibration through the feet while you stand on the platform. The vibration travels upward through the legs and into the spine and hips. When you stand straight on the device (and avoid bending your knees), the platform uses the skeleton as a transducer and about 80% of that mechanical signal is transmitted to your hip and spine at 30 cycles per second.
Osteoboost takes a different approach. By positioning the vibration source directly against the sacrum, the device delivers the mechanical stimulus closer to the bones of the lumbar spine and hips, the two areas most vulnerable to common osteoporotic fractures. The company argues this targeted delivery is more efficient than sending vibrations through the feet.
Marodyne and Juvent recommend that you to stand on a vibrating plate for 10 minutes at a time. Osteoboost is wearable, so you can walk around and go about light activities during treatment.
We cover vibration platforms, including the critical distinction between low-intensity and high-intensity vibration, in detail in my whole body vibration therapy post. If you are considering any vibration-based approach to bone health, I encourage you to read that article as well.
The Osteoboost Clinical Trial: What the Evidence Actually Shows
Osteoboost’s marketing highlights the per-protocol results from the clinical trial. This is standard for FDA-regulated device marketing, but it is important for consumers to understand the full picture from the clinical trial. It is important to know the distinction before making your decision so I suggest you read this section slowly and carefully.
Study Design
The pivotal study was a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It was published in JBMR Plus in July 2024 (Bilek LD et al.).
The study enrolled 126 postmenopausal women with osteopenia (DXA T-scores between -1.0 and -2.49 at the spine and hip). Participants were randomized 1:1: 64 received the active device and 62 received a sham device that emitted sound but delivered no vibration. All participants received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.
The study enrolled 126 women, larger than typical for a De Novo device trial of this class. This is a gold-standard study design. I give credit to the company for investing in this level of evidence. Unfortunately, many device manufacturers do not.
The Primary Endpoint Did Not Reach Statistical Significance
The primary endpoint was the percentage change in vertebral bone compressive strength at L1 (a single vertebra), measured by finite element analysis (FEA) of CT scans. This is a computational simulation of bone strength, not a direct measurement of fracture resistance.
In the full modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, meaning all participants who began treatment, the difference between the active group (-1.40%) and the sham group (-2.74%) did not reach statistical significance (P = .17).
The study did not meet its primary endpoint in the full treatment population.
The Positive Results Come from a Subgroup
The positive results that Osteoboost prominently advertises, the 85% reduction in vertebral bone density loss, 83% reduction in vertebral bone strength loss, and 55% reduction in hip bone density loss, come from the per-protocol subgroup: participants who averaged at least 3 treatment sessions per week throughout the year. In this compliant subgroup:
- Vertebral bone strength: Active group lost 0.48% vs. Sham lost 2.84% (P = .028)
- Vertebral bone density (CT): Active group lost 0.29% vs. Sham lost 1.97% (P = .016)
- Hip bone density showed a trend toward benefit (55% less loss) but was measured by DEXA
It is worth noting that the per-protocol analysis was pre-specified in the study design, which strengthens its validity compared to a post-hoc subgroup analysis. The study was also well-blinded and the endpoint was objective, meaning responder bias is not a concern. However, per-protocol analyses are inherently a subset of the full study population and can be influenced by selection bias. Under this circumstance, people who are most compliant with a device may differ from those who are not and this may affect outcomes independently of the treatment.
What Was NOT Shown
Several important limitations need to be clearly understood:
- No fracture reduction data. The study did not measure whether using Osteoboost reduces fracture risk. Fracture risk is what actually matters to patients. The connection between the observed changes in bone density/strength and actual fracture prevention remains unproven.
- DEXA-based spine results were not statistically significant. The standard clinical measurement tool (DEXA) did not show a significant difference at the lumbar spine. The significant results came from CT-based volumetric bone density and FEA-derived strength at a single vertebra (L1). The study authors attributed this to the higher noise inherent in DEXA measurements of the lumbar spine.
- Only 12 months of data. We do not know whether the benefits persist, increase, or diminish with longer use.
- Single-center trial. Although the enrollment of 126 women exceeds typical device trial sizes, it was conducted at one center, and the participants were mostly White. Generalizability to diverse populations is uncertain.
- Only studied in osteopenia and not osteoporosis. The device has not been tested in women with osteoporosis.
Conflicts of Interest Worth Noting
In any review of a medical device, transparency about conflicts of interest is important. The lead author of the clinical trial (Dr. Laura Bilek) has received research support and stock options from Bone Health Technologies and serves as a clinical advisor to the company. Co-author Michael Jaasma is an employee and has stock ownership in Bone Health Technologies.
This does not invalidate the research, but it does mean that the reader should interpret the results in that context.
Expert Criticism of the Study
In April 2025, a group of prominent bone researchers published a formal letter of concern in JBMR Plus. The signatories included Douglas P. Kiel, MD (Harvard Medical School / Marcus Institute for Aging Research), Theresa A. Guise, MD (MD Anderson Cancer Center), Maya Styner, MD (UNC Chapel Hill), and Janet Rubin, MD (UNC Chapel Hill).
Their key concerns included:
- The primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance in the full study population. The positive finding was limited to a compliant subgroup and based on a computational simulation of a single vertebral body.
- Osteopenia is a systemic condition, not a local one. The study authors framed a site-targeted device as a treatment for osteopenia, but the results only showed potential benefit at the specific bones near the vibration source. The device does nothing for the bones in your feet, lower legs, thighs, ribs, upper spine, jaw bone or skull.
- Patients may develop unrealistic expectations. The letter authors noted that endocrinologists were already hearing from patients who wanted to use the device to treat osteoporosis, beyond the cleared indication, and expressed concern that the gap between the published evidence and what patients expect from the device could lead to disappointment or delayed uptake of proven treatments.
In the interest of balanced transparency, it should be noted that the letter authors also have disclosed conflicts. Dr. Kiel is an advisor to Solarea Bio, an osteoporosis supplement company, and Dr. Janet Rubin is the sister of Dr. Clinton Rubin, the researcher whose work underlies low-intensity vibration platforms such as the Juvent and Marodyne LiV. These relationships do not diminish the scientific validity of their concerns, but readers should be aware of them.
The Osteoboost study authors responded to these concerns, arguing that the device was never presented as a treatment for systemic osteopenia throughout the body, but rather as targeted therapy for the lumbar spine and hips, the bones where fractures carry the most serious consequences. They also positioned the device as complementary to exercise, not a replacement for it.
Why a Whole-Skeleton Approach Matters
The criticism about Osteoboost’s localized effect is strengthened considerably by a large 2026 observational study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (Alajlouni et al.). The researchers analyzed data from nearly 11,000 adults aged 60 and older, 7,568 women and 3,366 men, drawn from two well-established longitudinal cohorts: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study and the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study in Australia.
Their findings challenge the assumption that only hip and spine fractures matter.
Fractures outside the hip and spine are far more common than many people realize
Fractures at sites other than the traditional ‘major osteoporotic fracture’ locations (hip, spine, humerus, and forearm), what the researchers call NonMOF, accounted for 38% of all fractures in women and 48% in men. In women, the most common of these were lower leg fractures (25%), rib fractures (24%), foot fractures (11%), knee fractures (11%), and pelvic fractures outside the hip (9%). None of these sites are anywhere near the Osteoboost treatment zone.
These “other” fractures carry nearly identical subsequent fracture risk
Here is the finding I consider most important: when the researchers directly compared NonMOF fractures to MOF fractures head-to-head, the risk of sustaining a subsequent fracture was statistically indistinguishable. In women, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.87–1.22). In men, it was 0.99 (0.65–1.51). In plain language, a woman who breaks her rib or her lower leg faces the same risk of breaking another bone as a woman who fractures her hip or spine.
NonMOF fractures were also associated with significant excess mortality, more than 30% in both women and men, even after adjusting for age and comorbidities. While this was lower than the mortality risk following hip and spine fractures, it is far from trivial.
Even distal fractures signal systemic skeletal fragility
The researchers also proposed a useful anatomical classification, hip, vertebral, proximal, and distal, and found that every category carried statistically significant risk. Even distal fractures (the sites furthest from the body’s center, such as the forearm, hand, lower leg, and foot) were associated with a 48% increased risk of subsequent fracture in women and 30% excess mortality. Mortality risk increased incrementally moving from distal sites through proximal sites to vertebral and hip fractures, but the key message is that no fracture site was benign.
Women with NonMOF fractures are already in a fracture cascade
Another important detail: women who sustained NonMOF fractures actually had a higher prevalence of prior fracture (35.6%) than those who sustained MOF fractures (31.0%). This suggests that NonMOF fractures are particularly common among women who are already experiencing a pattern of recurrent fracture, exactly the population that needs the most comprehensive skeletal protection.
What this means for evaluating Osteoboost
The takeaway is clear: bone health is a whole-skeleton issue. A fracture anywhere signals fragility everywhere. Any strategy that addresses only the spine and hips, however convenient or well-intentioned, leaves a substantial portion of your fracture risk unaddressed. In the Alajlouni study, 38% of all subsequent fractures in women and 29% of all post-fracture deaths followed a NonMOF fracture. These are events that a localized device simply cannot influence.
This is why exercise remains the foundation of any bone health program. Progressive resistance training and impact loading have systemic skeletal effects, they strengthen bones throughout your body, not just at one or two sites.
Equally important, exercise improves balance, muscle strength, and coordination, reducing your risk of falling in the first place, which is how most fractures occur.
Can Osteoboost Be Used for Osteoporosis?
Clients often ask me if they can use Osteoboost for osteoporosis management. The answer requires some nuance.
Osteoboost was studied in, and is FDA-cleared for, postmenopausal women with osteopenia (T-scores between -1.0 and -2.49). It has not been studied in women with osteoporosis. The company’s FAQ says that if you have osteoporosis, you should discuss with your doctor whether Osteoboost might be appropriate for you.
That said, it is important to understand what Osteoboost can and cannot do in context. The study showed that the device slowed bone loss, it did not reverse it, build new bone, or increase bone density. For a woman with osteoporosis, the degree of bone loss is more advanced, and the need for intervention is greater.
Long-term multifaceted exercises trials such as the Erlanger study has shown that strength training over many years can reduce fracture risk. However I recognize that many individuals are unable to engage regularly in strength training, weight-bearing aerobic and balance training. These individuals benefit the most from a vibration platform that stimulates all the bones from your toes to your nose.
Established medications like bisphosphonates, romosozumab (EVENITY) and other anabolic drugs have demonstrated the ability to increase bone density and, most importantly, reduce fracture risk in randomized controlled trials. Osteoboost has not demonstrated fracture reduction.
If you have osteoporosis, I encourage you to start a progressive exercise program today. A conversation with your physician about proven pharmacological options is also worthwhile. Osteoboost, even if it works as described, is not a substitute for exercise or medications that have demonstrated fracture risk reduction.
Free 7-Day Osteoporosis Exercise Course
Whether you have osteopenia or osteoporosis, a safe and effective exercise should be part of your treatment plan. Sign up below for my free seven day email course on osteoporosis and exercise. You will learn the fundamentals of safe and effective exercise if you have osteoporosis or osteopenia.
Free Email Course
How Much Does Osteoboost Cost?
Osteoboost is currently available at a launch price of $995 (MSRP $1,500). It requires a prescription, which can be obtained from any licensed US healthcare provider or through Osteoboost’s telehealth partner (Beluga Health) for $30.
Osteoboost is not covered by insurance or Medicare at this time. The company is working toward coverage, but notes that the review process can take several years. The device is eligible for HSA/FSA reimbursement with proof of prescription.
The device comes with a 1-year manufacturer’s warranty and is expected to last at least 3 years.
Currently, Osteoboost is only available in the United States with a US shipping address. International availability is expected in coming years but depends on local regulatory approvals.
The Bottom Line: My Assessment and Recommendations
Osteoboost is an interesting and novel device that addresses a genuine gap in the treatment of osteopenia. I respect the fact that the company invested in a randomized, sham-controlled, NIH-funded clinical trial, this is more evidence than most bone health devices on the market can claim.
However, I think it is important for my readers to understand the following:
What Osteoboost showed:
In women who used the device at least 3 times per week, it significantly slowed the rate of bone density and bone strength loss at the lumbar spine over 12 months, compared to a sham device. There was also a trend toward reduced bone density loss at the hip.
What Osteoboost did NOT show:
It did not build new bone, increase bone density, or demonstrate fracture risk reduction. The primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance in the full study population. The effects are limited to the bones near the vibration source and do not address systemic skeletal health. It has not been studied in osteoporosis.
Where it might fit:
For a postmenopausal woman with osteopenia who is already doing targeted exercise and is looking for an additional non-drug intervention, and who can afford the $995 cost, Osteoboost may offer some added benefit in slowing bone loss at the spine and hips. It should be viewed as a potential complement to, not a substitute for, a comprehensive exercise program.
Where it should NOT be the primary strategy:
Osteoboost should not replace exercise, and it should not be used as a reason to decline proven pharmacological treatment if your physician recommends it for osteoporosis. Your whole skeleton, not just your spine and hips, needs protection.
The most effective approach to bone health remains what the evidence has consistently shown: progressive strength training, weight bearing and balance exercises, adequate nutrition (calcium, vitamin D, protein), and, when indicated, appropriate medication. These strategies protect your entire skeleton, reduce falls, and have decades of evidence behind them.
If you are looking for a comprehensive, evidence-based exercise program designed specifically for people with osteoporosis and osteopenia, our Exercise for Better Bones program has helped over 40,000 people take control of their bone health through safe, effective exercise.
Osteoboost: FAQs
Is Osteoboost FDA approved?
Osteoboost received FDA clearance (not approval — an important distinction) in January 2024 through the De Novo regulatory pathway. It also received Breakthrough Device designation. De Novo clearance is the pathway for novel, low-to-moderate risk devices that do not have an existing category to compare against. It requires demonstration of reasonable safety and effectiveness.
Does Osteoboost really work?
The clinical trial showed that Osteoboost significantly slowed the rate of bone loss at the lumbar spine in women who used it at least 3 times per week, compared to a sham device. However, the study's primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance in the full study population, and the device has not been shown to build bone, increase bone density, or reduce fracture risk.
Can I use Osteoboost if I have osteoporosis?
Osteoboost has only been studied in and cleared for postmenopausal women with osteopenia (T-scores between -1.0 and -2.49). It has not been tested in osteoporosis. If you have osteoporosis, you should discuss your treatment options — including proven pharmacological therapies — with your physician.
Is Osteoboost covered by insurance?
No. Osteoboost is currently self-pay only at $995 (launch price; MSRP $1,500). It is not covered by insurance or Medicare. It is HSA/FSA eligible with a valid prescription. The device comes with a 1-year manufacturer's warranty and is expected to last at least 3 years.
How is Osteoboost different from a low intensity vibration platform?
Low intensity platforms, such as Marodyne, deliver vibration through the feet while you stand on the platform. The vibration travels upward through the legs and into the spine and hips. When you stand straight on the device (and avoid bending your knees), the platform uses the skeleton as a transducer and reaches the hip and spine. Osteoboost is wearable and can be used while walking. Osteoboost is also the only vibration device with FDA clearance specifically for osteopenia treatment.
Does Osteoboost have side effects?
In the 12-month clinical trial, no serious device-related adverse events were reported. Some participants in both the active and sham groups experienced back pain, pelvic pain, and leg pain, which were described as mild to moderate and typically resolved after temporarily pausing use.
Is Osteoboost available outside the United States?
Not currently. Osteoboost is only available with a US prescription and US shipping address. International availability is expected in the coming years, pending regulatory approvals in other countries.
Margaret Martin
Further Readings
References
- Bilek LD, Flores LE, Waltman N, et al. Benefits of targeted vibration for bone strength and bone density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. JBMR Plus. 2024;ziae104. doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae104
- Kiel DP, Guise TA, Styner M, Rubin J. Concerns about the paper, “Benefits of targeted vibration for bone strength and bone density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, sham-controlled trial.” JBMR Plus. 2025;9(5):ziaf051. doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziaf051
- Bilek LD, Jaasma MJ. Response to letter to the editor. JBMR Plus. 2025. doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziaf052
- Alajlouni DA, Alarkawi D, Tran TS, et al. Fractures at virtually all sites are associated with adverse outcomes: an observational study. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2026;zjag052. doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjag052
- FDA De Novo Classification Request: Osteoboost Belt (DEN230015). U.S. Food and Drug Administration. January 2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm?id=DEN230015
Comments