目的:本研究旨在进行荟萃分析,以确定在多发性硬化症(pwMS)患者中,高强度间歇训练(HIIT)方案是否比中度连续训练(MCT)更有利于改善预后指标。此外,系统地审查锻炼方案的差异。
方法:搜索策略,在pwMS中定位HIIT,在六个数据库中执行,PubMed,EMBASE,WebofScience,中央Cochrane,佩德罗,OvidMEDLINE。
方法:分析中包括使用自行车测功机或卧位踏步机作为运动方式的HIIT随机对照试验。干预武器应至少包括两个干预武器,包括一只手臂的HIIT,和MCT在另一组。
方法:从每项研究中提取的数据包括以下项目:研究的基本细节(例如作者,发布日期,location,和研究设计),参与者特征(样本量,平均年龄,性别,平均疾病持续时间,和扩展的残疾状况量表),HITT协议的规格(锻炼方式,会话持续时间,间隔/会话的数量,间隔强度,恢复强度,恢复间隔,和不利影响),以及基线和干预后的主要结局(心肺适应性,疲劳,身体成分,肌肉力量,认知功能,和血液生物标志物)。
结果:系统评价中包含22项研究,11例纳入随机效应模型汇总分析。与MCT相比,HIIT对心肺功能的VO2max具有显着影响(ES=0.4595%,CI[0.14,0.76],p=0.004),和认知功能的记忆域(ES=0.3495%CI[0.05,0.63],p=0.02)。其他变量没有达到统计学意义。
结论:HIIT和MCT在疲劳方面产生相似的结果,身体成分,认知功能,和血液生物标志物。然而,心肺功能的VO2max和认知功能的记忆域支持HIIT方案。
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically
review the exercise protocols differences.
METHODS: A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
METHODS: Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
METHODS: Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
RESULTS: 22 studies included in the systematic
review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
CONCLUSIONS: HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.