PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Many exercise studies, including older adults, do not report all relevant exercise characteristics. Especially the description of exercise intensity is missing and mostly not controlled. This leads to difficulties in interpreting study results and summarizing the evidence in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, the aim of the present Delphi study was to gain recommendations about the categorization of exercise intensity and for the conducting and reporting of characteristics in future intervention studies with older adults by experts in exercise science and physiology.
METHODS: Two hundred ninety-seven international interdisciplinary participants from an EU COST action were invited to participate in three rounds of online questionnaires in April/May 2023. Up to N = 93 experts participated in each round. Round 1 included open-ended questions to solicit possible recommendations and categorizations for light, moderate, vigorous, and high intensity. In round 2, the experts rated their agreement using Likert scales (1-10) on the revealed categories and recommendations. Clusters with a higher average rating of M = 8.0 were summarized into round 3. In the final round, the results were presented for a final rating of agreement (based on a simple majority > 50%).
RESULTS: In round 1 a total of 416 qualitative statements were provided from thirteen questions. From round 1 to round 3, a total of 38 items were excluded, with 205 items retained for the final consensus. In round three 37 participants completed the whole questionnaire. The experts showed overall agreement on the final categorizations with 6.7 to 8.8 out of 10 points on the Likert scale. They also showed broad consensus on the relevance of reporting exercise intensity and the recommendations for future conducting and reporting of study results. However, exercise types such as yoga, balance, and coordination training led to conflicting results for categorization into light or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current survey can be used to classify the intensity of exercise and suggest a practical approach that can be adopted by the scientific community and applied when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles when vital and objective information regarding exercise intensity is lacking from the original article.
METHODS: Two hundred ninety-seven international interdisciplinary participants from an EU COST action were invited to participate in three rounds of online questionnaires in April/May 2023. Up to N = 93 experts participated in each round. Round 1 included open-ended questions to solicit possible recommendations and categorizations for light, moderate, vigorous, and high intensity. In round 2, the experts rated their agreement using Likert scales (1-10) on the revealed categories and recommendations. Clusters with a higher average rating of M = 8.0 were summarized into round 3. In the final round, the results were presented for a final rating of agreement (based on a simple majority > 50%).
RESULTS: In round 1 a total of 416 qualitative statements were provided from thirteen questions. From round 1 to round 3, a total of 38 items were excluded, with 205 items retained for the final consensus. In round three 37 participants completed the whole questionnaire. The experts showed overall agreement on the final categorizations with 6.7 to 8.8 out of 10 points on the Likert scale. They also showed broad consensus on the relevance of reporting exercise intensity and the recommendations for future conducting and reporting of study results. However, exercise types such as yoga, balance, and coordination training led to conflicting results for categorization into light or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current survey can be used to classify the intensity of exercise and suggest a practical approach that can be adopted by the scientific community and applied when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles when vital and objective information regarding exercise intensity is lacking from the original article.
摘要：
背景：许多运动研究，包括老年人,不要报告所有相关的运动特征。特别是缺少对运动强度的描述，而且大多无法控制。这导致难以解释研究结果并在系统评价或荟萃分析中总结证据。因此,本Delphi研究的目的是获得有关运动强度分类以及运动科学和生理学专家在未来对老年人进行干预研究时进行和报告特征的建议.
方法：来自欧盟COST行动的二百九十七名国际跨学科参与者被邀请参加2023年4月/5月的三轮在线问卷调查。每轮有多达93名专家参加。第一轮包括不限成员名额的问题，以征求可能的建议和分类，中度,充满活力,和高强度。在第2轮中，专家们使用Likert量表（1-10）对所揭示的类别和建议进行了评估。具有较高平均评级M=8.0的集群被总结为第3轮。在最后一轮，结果以最终一致性评级(基于简单多数>50%)呈现.
结果：在第1轮中，从13个问题中总共提供了416个定性陈述。从第1轮到第3轮，总共排除了38个项目，为达成最终共识保留了205个项目。在第三轮中，37名参与者完成了整个问卷。专家们对最终分类表示总体同意，李克特量表10分中有6.7至8.8分。他们还就报告工作强度的相关性以及对今后开展和报告研究结果的建议达成了广泛共识。然而,锻炼类型，如瑜伽，balance,和协调培训导致将分类为轻度或中度的结果相互矛盾。
结论：当前调查的结果可用于对运动强度进行分类，并提出了一种实用的方法，该方法可被科学界采用，并在原始文章中缺乏有关运动强度的重要和客观信息时进行系统评价和荟萃分析文章时应用。
方法：来自欧盟COST行动的二百九十七名国际跨学科参与者被邀请参加2023年4月/5月的三轮在线问卷调查。每轮有多达93名专家参加。第一轮包括不限成员名额的问题，以征求可能的建议和分类，中度,充满活力,和高强度。在第2轮中，专家们使用Likert量表（1-10）对所揭示的类别和建议进行了评估。具有较高平均评级M=8.0的集群被总结为第3轮。在最后一轮，结果以最终一致性评级(基于简单多数>50%)呈现.
结果：在第1轮中，从13个问题中总共提供了416个定性陈述。从第1轮到第3轮，总共排除了38个项目，为达成最终共识保留了205个项目。在第三轮中，37名参与者完成了整个问卷。专家们对最终分类表示总体同意，李克特量表10分中有6.7至8.8分。他们还就报告工作强度的相关性以及对今后开展和报告研究结果的建议达成了广泛共识。然而,锻炼类型，如瑜伽，balance,和协调培训导致将分类为轻度或中度的结果相互矛盾。
结论：当前调查的结果可用于对运动强度进行分类，并提出了一种实用的方法，该方法可被科学界采用，并在原始文章中缺乏有关运动强度的重要和客观信息时进行系统评价和荟萃分析文章时应用。
