James Manifield, Yousuf Chaudhry, Sally J. Singh, Thomas J.C. Ward, Maxine E. Whelan, Mark W. Orme
{"title":"肺康复后体力活动、久坐行为和睡眠的变化:系统综述和网络荟萃分析","authors":"James Manifield, Yousuf Chaudhry, Sally J. Singh, Thomas J.C. Ward, Maxine E. Whelan, Mark W. Orme","doi":"10.1183/16000617.0225-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<sec><st>Background:</st>\n<p>The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Objectives:</st>\n<p>To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Methods:</st>\n<p>Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Results:</st>\n<p>46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>\n<p>The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.</p>\n</sec>","PeriodicalId":12166,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"James Manifield, Yousuf Chaudhry, Sally J. Singh, Thomas J.C. Ward, Maxine E. Whelan, Mark W. Orme\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/16000617.0225-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<sec><st>Background:</st>\\n<p>The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Objectives:</st>\\n<p>To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Methods:</st>\\n<p>Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Results:</st>\\n<p>46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>\\n<p>The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.</p>\\n</sec>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0225-2023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0225-2023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Background:
The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.
Objectives:
To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.
Methods:
Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD.
Results:
46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR.
Conclusion:
The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.
期刊介绍:
The European Respiratory Review (ERR) is an open-access journal published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), serving as a vital resource for respiratory professionals by delivering updates on medicine, science, and surgery in the field. ERR features state-of-the-art review articles, editorials, correspondence, and summaries of recent research findings and studies covering a wide range of topics including COPD, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary infections. Articles are published continuously and compiled into quarterly issues within a single annual volume.