不同运动项目对慢性阻塞性肺病患者肺功能的影响:一项研究性试验的网络荟萃分析。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Susana Priego-Jiménez , Iván Cavero-Redondo , Carlos Pascual-Morena , Irene Martínez-García , Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno , Celia Álvarez-Bueno
{"title":"不同运动项目对慢性阻塞性肺病患者肺功能的影响:一项研究性试验的网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Susana Priego-Jiménez ,&nbsp;Iván Cavero-Redondo ,&nbsp;Carlos Pascual-Morena ,&nbsp;Irene Martínez-García ,&nbsp;Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno ,&nbsp;Celia Álvarez-Bueno","doi":"10.1016/j.rehab.2023.101792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has systemic consequences and causes structural abnormalities throughout the respiratory system. It is associated with a high clinical burden worldwide.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p><span>A network meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of exercise programs on lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1%) and </span>forced vital capacity in people with COPD.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was performed to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise programs on lung function in people with COPD were included. A standard pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis for direct and indirect comparisons between intervention and control/nonintervention groups were carried out to calculate the standardized mean difference and 95 % CI. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>35 studies with a total sample of 2909 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. The highest standardized mean difference was for active mind body movement therapy programs versus control for FEV1 and FEV1% (0.71; 95 % CI 0.32 to1.09; and 0.36; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.58, respectively), and pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies versus control for forced vital capacity (0.45; 95 % CI 0.07 to 0.84).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>active mind body movement therapy programs were the most effective type of exercise program to improve lung function measured by FEV1 and FEV1%; pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies had the greatest effects on FVC in people with COPD. Exercise programs in which the abdominal muscles are strengthened could improve lung emptying, helping to overcome airway resistance in people with COPD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":"67 2","pages":"Article 101792"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of different exercise programs on lung function in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A network meta-analysis of RCTs\",\"authors\":\"Susana Priego-Jiménez ,&nbsp;Iván Cavero-Redondo ,&nbsp;Carlos Pascual-Morena ,&nbsp;Irene Martínez-García ,&nbsp;Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno ,&nbsp;Celia Álvarez-Bueno\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rehab.2023.101792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has systemic consequences and causes structural abnormalities throughout the respiratory system. It is associated with a high clinical burden worldwide.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p><span>A network meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of exercise programs on lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1%) and </span>forced vital capacity in people with COPD.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was performed to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise programs on lung function in people with COPD were included. A standard pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis for direct and indirect comparisons between intervention and control/nonintervention groups were carried out to calculate the standardized mean difference and 95 % CI. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>35 studies with a total sample of 2909 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. The highest standardized mean difference was for active mind body movement therapy programs versus control for FEV1 and FEV1% (0.71; 95 % CI 0.32 to1.09; and 0.36; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.58, respectively), and pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies versus control for forced vital capacity (0.45; 95 % CI 0.07 to 0.84).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>active mind body movement therapy programs were the most effective type of exercise program to improve lung function measured by FEV1 and FEV1%; pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies had the greatest effects on FVC in people with COPD. Exercise programs in which the abdominal muscles are strengthened could improve lung emptying, helping to overcome airway resistance in people with COPD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine\",\"volume\":\"67 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 101792\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065723000635\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065723000635","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)具有全身性后果,会导致整个呼吸系统结构异常。目的:通过网络荟萃分析,确定运动项目对慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者肺功能的影响,肺功能的测量指标包括第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、FEV1 占预测值的百分比(FEV1%)和用力肺活量:方法:对截至 2023 年 3 月的文献进行检索。方法:对截至 2023 年 3 月的文献进行了检索,纳入了有关运动项目对慢性阻塞性肺病患者肺功能有效性的随机对照试验。对干预组和对照组/非干预组之间的直接和间接比较进行了标准配对荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析,以计算标准化平均差和 95 % CI。使用科克伦偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,并使用建议、评估、发展和评价分级工具评估证据质量:本次网络荟萃分析共纳入了 35 项研究,样本总数为 2909 人。在FEV1和FEV1%方面,主动意念肢体运动疗法项目与对照组的标准化平均差异最大(分别为0.71;95 % CI 0.32至1.09;和0.36;95 % CI 0.15至0.58);在强迫生命容量方面,肺康复+主动意念肢体运动疗法与对照组的标准化平均差异最大(分别为0.45;95 % CI 0.07至0.84)。结论:积极的意念肢体运动疗法项目是改善以FEV1和FEV1%衡量的肺功能最有效的运动项目类型;肺康复+积极的意念肢体运动疗法对慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的FVC影响最大。加强腹部肌肉力量的运动项目可改善肺排空,有助于克服慢性阻塞性肺病患者的气道阻力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of different exercise programs on lung function in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A network meta-analysis of RCTs

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has systemic consequences and causes structural abnormalities throughout the respiratory system. It is associated with a high clinical burden worldwide.

Aim

A network meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of exercise programs on lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1%) and forced vital capacity in people with COPD.

Methods

A literature search was performed to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise programs on lung function in people with COPD were included. A standard pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis for direct and indirect comparisons between intervention and control/nonintervention groups were carried out to calculate the standardized mean difference and 95 % CI. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

Results

35 studies with a total sample of 2909 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. The highest standardized mean difference was for active mind body movement therapy programs versus control for FEV1 and FEV1% (0.71; 95 % CI 0.32 to1.09; and 0.36; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.58, respectively), and pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies versus control for forced vital capacity (0.45; 95 % CI 0.07 to 0.84).

Conclusions

active mind body movement therapy programs were the most effective type of exercise program to improve lung function measured by FEV1 and FEV1%; pulmonary rehabilitation+active mind body movements therapies had the greatest effects on FVC in people with COPD. Exercise programs in which the abdominal muscles are strengthened could improve lung emptying, helping to overcome airway resistance in people with COPD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
136
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine covers all areas of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine; such as: methods of evaluation of motor, sensory, cognitive and visceral impairments; acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain; disabilities in adult and children ; processes of rehabilitation in orthopaedic, rhumatological, neurological, cardiovascular, pulmonary and urological diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信