ACSM recommendations

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目标:该研究的目的是根据ACSM建议对临床试验的方法学质量(运动对老年人虚弱的影响)进行分析。方法:搜索范围包括PubMed,Embase,WebofScience,科克伦,和无法从数据库中检索到的文献。主题是运动对老年人虚弱的影响。五项结果指标的变化(FP,BI,SPPB,GS,和BMI)使用均差(MD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)进行评估。使用随机效应模型(RE)进行荟萃分析,并比较亚组之间的结果。结果:运动对老年人体弱者五项结局指标的干预效果均有统计学意义(p<0.05)。高一致性亚组对结果指标FP和GS的影响比低一致性或不确定一致性亚组更显著(MD:-1.09<-0.11,MD:2.39>1.1)。高一致性亚组的结果指标SPPB和BMI反映的干预效果没有显着差异(p=0.07,p=0.34)。两个亚组之间干预对结果测量BI的影响没有显着差异(p=0.06,p=0.14)。结论:在FP和GS干预措施中,与ACSM建议高度一致的运动处方可能比不确定或一致性低的运动处方更有效。然而,值得注意的是,荟萃分析得出的数据仍然受到少量研究的影响,个体研究中参与者的一致性程度未知,以及研究中不同的病例组合。
    Objectives: The objective of the study was to carry out an analysis of the methodological quality of clinical trials (effects of exercise on frailty in older people) based on ACSM recommendations. Methods: The search scope included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and literature that cannot be retrieved from the database. The topic was the impact of exercise on frailty in elderly people. Changes in five outcome measures (FP, BI, SPPB, GS, and BMI) were assessed using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A random effects model (RE) was used to conduct a meta-analysis and compare the results between subgroups. Results: The intervention effects of exercise on the five outcome indicators of frailty in elderly people were all significant (p < 0.05). The effect of a high-consistency subgroup on outcome indicators FP and GS was more significant than that of the low- or uncertain-consistency subgroup (MD: -1.09 < -0.11, MD: 2.39 >1.1). There was no significant difference in the intervention effect as reflected in the outcome measures SPPB and BMI in the high-consistency subgroup (p = 0.07, p = 0.34). There was no significant difference in the impact of the intervention on the outcome measure BI between the two subgroups (p = 0.06, p = 0.14). Conclusions: Exercise prescriptions with high consistency with ACSM recommendations may be more effective in both FP and GS interventions than those with uncertain or low consistency. However, it is essential to note that the data derived from the meta-analysis is still subject to the small number of studies, the unknown degree of consistency of participants in individual studies, and the different mix of cases in the studies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    目的:分析不同运动剂量对骨质疏松(OP)患者腰椎及股骨颈骨密度(BMD)的影响。设计:在四个电子数据库中进行了系统的检索,即,PubMed,Embase,WebofScience,还有Cochrane,主题是运动对OP患者骨密度的影响。确定了比较运动干预与无干预的随机对照试验,腰椎和股骨颈BMD的变化采用标准化均差(SMD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)进行报告和评估.对研究中的干预措施进行了评估,并将其归类为美国运动医学学院(ACSM)开发的OP患者的运动测试和处方建议的高依从性或ACSM建议的低/不确定依从性。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析并比较亚组之间的结果。结果:共有32项涉及2005年参与者的研究被纳入分析,根据ACSM建议,14项研究被归类为高依从性,18项研究被归类为低依从性或不确定依从性.在腰椎BMD的分析中,纳入了27项研究,包括1,539名参与者。高依从性组的组合SMD为0.31,而低或不确定依从性组的组合SMD为0.04。在股骨颈骨密度的分析中,纳入了23项研究,涉及1,606名参与者。高依从性组的组合SMD为0.45,而低或不确定依从性组的组合SMD为0.28。在阻力运动中,与ACSM依从性低或不确定的亚组相比,ACSM依从性高的亚组对腰椎BMD的影响更大(SMD:0.08>-0.04).同样,股骨颈BMD,与低或不确定ACSM依从性的运动相比,高ACSM依从性的抗阻运动具有更高的SMD(SMD:0.49>0.13).结论:结果表明,与对ACSM建议依从性低或不确定的干预措施相比,对ACSM建议依从性高的运动干预措施在改善OP患者腰椎和股骨颈BMD方面更有效。系统审查注册:PROSPERO,标识符CRD42023427009。
    Purpose: To analyze the effects of different exercise dose on lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in individuals with osteoporosis (OP). Design: A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane, with the topic of the impact of exercise on BMD in individuals with OP. Randomized controlled trials comparing exercise intervention with no intervention were identified, and changes in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD were reported and evaluated using standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The intervention measures in the studies were evaluated and categorized as high adherence with the exercise testing and prescription recommendations for individuals with OP developed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or low/uncertainty adherence with ACSM recommendations. A random effects model was used to conduct meta-analyses and compare the results between subgroups. Results: A total of 32 studies involving 2005 participants were included in the analyses, with 14 studies categorized as high adherence with ACSM recommendations and 18 studies categorized as low or uncertain adherence. In the analyses of lumbar spine BMD, 27 studies with 1,539 participants were included. The combined SMD for the high adherence group was 0.31, while the combined SMD for the low or uncertain adherence group was 0.04. In the analyses of femoral neck BMD, 23 studies with 1,606 participants were included. The combined SMD for the high adherence group was 0.45, while the combined SMD for the low or uncertain adherence group was 0.28. Within resistance exercise, the subgroup with high ACSM adherence had a greater impact on lumbar spine BMD compared to the subgroup with low or uncertain ACSM adherence (SMD: 0.08 > -0.04). Similarly, for femoral neck BMD, resistance exercise with high ACSM adherence had a higher SMD compared to exercise with low or uncertain ACSM adherence (SMD: 0.49 > 0.13). Conclusion: The results suggest that exercise interventions with high adherence to ACSM recommendations are more effective in improving lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD in individuals with OP compared to interventions with low or uncertain adherence to ACSM recommendations. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023427009.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号