Metabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina State University, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil; Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Exercise Research Group, Exercise Biology Research Lab (BioEx), Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Exercise Research Group, Exercise Biology Research Lab (BioEx), Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Applied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group, School of Physical Education and Sport, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ageing Res Rev. 2022 Sep;80:101673. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101673. Epub 2022 Jun 17.
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the changes caused by exercise intervention with those provoked by usual care on physical function biomarkers in older adults immediately after hospital discharge.
Two independent authors performed a systematic search (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO) of studies published from database inception until August 2021. Randomized clinical trials investigating the effects of an exercise intervention compared to usual care were included. The Cochrane Collaboration assessment tool was used to analyze the risk of bias. The comparisons included handgrip strength, the short physical performance battery scale, six-minute walking test, and 10-m gait speed.
Overall, the exercise intervention led to significantly greater changes compared to usual care in physical function biomarkers [standard mean difference = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.39, 1.42; P = 0.001]. However, considering the very few studies investigating each variable separately, our sub-analysis did not reveal a significant effect of the exercise intervention on handgrip strength, the short physical performance battery, six minutes walking test, and 10-m gait speed.
This systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials suggests that exercise intervention induce greater physical function biomarker alterations in older adults after hospitalization than usual care including physical activity guidance. Future trials comparing the effects of these intervention groups on physical function biomarkers in this population are needed to confirm our results.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较运动干预与常规护理对出院后老年人身体功能生物标志物的影响。
两位独立作者对从数据库建立到 2021 年 8 月发表的研究进行了系统检索(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science 和 SciELO)。纳入了比较运动干预与常规护理对身体功能影响的随机临床试验。使用 Cochrane 协作评估工具来分析偏倚风险。比较包括握力、简易体能测试量表、六分钟步行试验和 10 米步行速度。
总体而言,与常规护理相比,运动干预对身体功能生物标志物的变化有显著影响[标准均数差=0.89,95%置信区间=0.39,1.42;P=0.001]。然而,考虑到每个变量的研究非常少,我们的亚分析并未发现运动干预对握力、简易体能测试量表、六分钟步行试验和 10 米步行速度的显著影响。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的随机临床试验表明,与常规护理(包括体力活动指导)相比,运动干预可引起住院后老年人身体功能生物标志物更大的变化。未来需要比较这些干预组对该人群身体功能生物标志物的影响的试验,以证实我们的结果。