David H Saunders, Graham Baker, Joshua D Cheyne, Kay Cooper, Natalie A Fini, Alixe Hm Kilgour, Paul A Swinton, Gavin Williams, Gillian E Mead
{"title":"中风患者的抗阻训练。","authors":"David H Saunders, Graham Baker, Joshua D Cheyne, Kay Cooper, Natalie A Fini, Alixe Hm Kilgour, Paul A Swinton, Gavin Williams, Gillian E Mead","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Low muscle strength is common, particularly on the affected side, and is associated with post-stroke disability. Resistance training exercise interventions could increase muscle strength, improve physical function and reduce disability, and may benefit secondary prevention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this review is to determine whether resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP), together with reference checking, citation tracking and contact with experts in the field, to identify eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials comparing resistance training interventions with comparators of either usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of the longest follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition and fatigue.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool to assess bias in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of the intervention and at the end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. For outcomes not analysed using meta-analysis, we followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included a total of 27 studies with 1004 participants, with an average age of 62 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (18/27) during the sub-acute (10/27) and chronic (16/27) stages of recovery living in high-income countries (18/27). Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (17/27). A follow-up period was included in 8/27 studies (mean 9.9 months; range 2 to 48 months). Interventions typically involved exercise machines (16/27) or bodyweight exercises (10/27) delivered two to three days per week for between two and 12 weeks, which progressed on the basis of intensity and/or volume.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Resistance training does not increase (or decrease) deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 24 studies, 880 participants; high-certainty) or follow-up (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 202 participants; high-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of resistance training on indices of disability at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.24 to 1.33; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). There is a moderate-sized effect (SMD > 0.5) but there was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may have little or no effect on the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (all-cause) at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may reduce systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.42 to 24.42; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training probably improves multiple indices of musculoskeletal fitness at the end of intervention (overall moderate-certainty). Improvements in muscle strength occurred in the legs on the affected (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) and least affected sides (large effect SMD > 0.8), and both arms (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) although the evidence is less certain on the affected arm. Overall, there were very few data at the end of follow-up and overall effects were very uncertain. Resistance training probably results in little or no beneficial effect on comfortable walking speed (m/sec) at the end of intervention (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; I² = 43%; 6 studies, 212 participants; moderate-certainty) or the end of follow-up (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). Resistance training may improve indices of balance slightly (small effect SMD > 0.2) at the end of intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.80; I² = 24%; 5 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.85; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). There was no evidence concerning adverse effects attributable to participating in resistance training interventions. Adherence was good, although there were some dropouts attributable to the resistance training intervention. Overall, evidence certainty was limited by imprecision and risk of bias concerns.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Resistance training does not affect mortality at the end of intervention or after follow-up. We could not draw conclusions about resistance training effects on disability, secondary prevention of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or the risk of these because the data were inadequate. Resistance training probably increases muscle strength in the arms and legs, particularly on the unaffected side at the end of intervention. There was little or no effect on comfortable walking speed, possibly because the interventions were insufficiently task-related to walking. However, there may be a small improvement in balance which persists at follow-up. Resistance training interventions were adhered to without serious adverse events or adverse effects, but may not be acceptable to everyone. Inadequate data at follow-up prevented conclusions about retention of benefits. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the benefits and long-term effects.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 [DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2].</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016001"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resistance training for people with stroke.\",\"authors\":\"David H Saunders, Graham Baker, Joshua D Cheyne, Kay Cooper, Natalie A Fini, Alixe Hm Kilgour, Paul A Swinton, Gavin Williams, Gillian E Mead\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD016001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Low muscle strength is common, particularly on the affected side, and is associated with post-stroke disability. Resistance training exercise interventions could increase muscle strength, improve physical function and reduce disability, and may benefit secondary prevention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this review is to determine whether resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP), together with reference checking, citation tracking and contact with experts in the field, to identify eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials comparing resistance training interventions with comparators of either usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of the longest follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition and fatigue.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool to assess bias in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of the intervention and at the end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. For outcomes not analysed using meta-analysis, we followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included a total of 27 studies with 1004 participants, with an average age of 62 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (18/27) during the sub-acute (10/27) and chronic (16/27) stages of recovery living in high-income countries (18/27). Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (17/27). A follow-up period was included in 8/27 studies (mean 9.9 months; range 2 to 48 months). Interventions typically involved exercise machines (16/27) or bodyweight exercises (10/27) delivered two to three days per week for between two and 12 weeks, which progressed on the basis of intensity and/or volume.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Resistance training does not increase (or decrease) deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 24 studies, 880 participants; high-certainty) or follow-up (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 202 participants; high-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of resistance training on indices of disability at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.24 to 1.33; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). There is a moderate-sized effect (SMD > 0.5) but there was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may have little or no effect on the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (all-cause) at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may reduce systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.42 to 24.42; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training probably improves multiple indices of musculoskeletal fitness at the end of intervention (overall moderate-certainty). Improvements in muscle strength occurred in the legs on the affected (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) and least affected sides (large effect SMD > 0.8), and both arms (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) although the evidence is less certain on the affected arm. Overall, there were very few data at the end of follow-up and overall effects were very uncertain. Resistance training probably results in little or no beneficial effect on comfortable walking speed (m/sec) at the end of intervention (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; I² = 43%; 6 studies, 212 participants; moderate-certainty) or the end of follow-up (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). Resistance training may improve indices of balance slightly (small effect SMD > 0.2) at the end of intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.80; I² = 24%; 5 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.85; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). There was no evidence concerning adverse effects attributable to participating in resistance training interventions. Adherence was good, although there were some dropouts attributable to the resistance training intervention. Overall, evidence certainty was limited by imprecision and risk of bias concerns.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Resistance training does not affect mortality at the end of intervention or after follow-up. We could not draw conclusions about resistance training effects on disability, secondary prevention of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or the risk of these because the data were inadequate. Resistance training probably increases muscle strength in the arms and legs, particularly on the unaffected side at the end of intervention. There was little or no effect on comfortable walking speed, possibly because the interventions were insufficiently task-related to walking. However, there may be a small improvement in balance which persists at follow-up. Resistance training interventions were adhered to without serious adverse events or adverse effects, but may not be acceptable to everyone. Inadequate data at follow-up prevented conclusions about retention of benefits. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the benefits and long-term effects.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 [DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"CD016001\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458981/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:中风后身体活动和身体健康水平较低。低肌肉力量是常见的,特别是在受影响的一侧,并与中风后残疾有关。抗阻训练干预可以增加肌肉力量,改善身体机能,减少残疾,并可能有利于二级预防。目的:本综述的主要目的是确定与非运动对照组相比,卒中后阻力训练是否对死亡、残疾、不良事件、危险因素、健康、步行和身体功能指标有任何影响。检索方法:在2024年1月,我们检索了9个数据库(CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro和DORIS)和两个试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov和ICTRP),并进行了参考文献检查,引文跟踪和与该领域专家的联系,以确定符合条件的研究。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验,将抗阻训练干预与卒中患者的常规护理、无干预或无运动干预进行比较。结果:我们的关键结果域是死亡、残疾、不良事件、危险因素、健康、步行和身体功能指标。我们评估了干预结束时和最长随访结束时的结果。我们的其他重要结果领域是生活质量,情绪,认知和疲劳指数。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane Risk of bias 1.0工具评估纳入研究的偏倚。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们在干预结束时和随访结束时使用随机效应荟萃分析对臂水平数据进行综合。对于二分类结果,我们计算了风险差(RD)和95%置信区间(CI)。对于连续结果,我们计算了平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)和95% CI。对于未使用荟萃分析分析的结果,我们遵循无荟萃分析的综合(SWiM)指南。我们使用GRADE来评估关键结局证据的确定性。纳入的研究:我们共纳入27项研究,1004名参与者,平均年龄为62岁。大多数研究招募了生活在高收入国家(18/27)的亚急性(10/27)和慢性(16/27)康复阶段的流动参与者(18/27)。大多数研究干预措施缺乏平衡剂量的对照暴露(17/27)。8/27项研究纳入随访期(平均9.9个月,范围2至48个月)。干预措施通常包括锻炼器械(16/27)或体重锻炼(10/27),每周进行两到三天,持续2到12周,根据强度和/或体积进行进展。综合结果:抗阻训练不增加(或减少)干预结束时的死亡率(风险差RD为0.00,95% CI为-0.02至0.02;I²= 0%;24项研究,880名受试者;高确定性)或随访(RD为0.00,95% CI为-0.05至0.05;I²= 0%;5项研究,202名受试者;高确定性)。在干预结束时,阻力训练对残疾指数的影响的证据非常不确定(标准化平均差SMD为0.55,95% CI为-0.24至1.33;1项研究,26名参与者;非常低的确定性)。有一个中等大小的影响(SMD >.5),但只有一个小的研究。随访时没有数据。在干预结束时,阻力训练可能对继发性心脑血管事件(全因)的发生率影响很小或没有影响(RD为0.00,95% CI为-0.31至0.31;1项研究,10名受试者;非常低确定性)。只有一项小型研究。随访时没有数据。在干预结束时,阻力训练可能降低收缩压(mmHg),但证据非常不确定(平均差MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.42至24.42;1项研究,22名参与者;非常低确定性)。只有一项小型研究。随访时没有数据。在干预结束时,阻力训练可能改善肌肉骨骼健康的多个指标(总体中等确定性)。肌肉力量的改善发生在受影响的腿部(中度影响SMD > 0.5)和最不受影响的两侧(大影响SMD > 0.8),以及双臂(中度影响SMD > 0.5),尽管在受影响的手臂上的证据不太确定。总体而言,随访结束时数据很少,总体效果非常不确定。在干预结束时(MD为-0.00,95% CI为-0.08至0.07;I²= 43%;6项研究,212名参与者;中等确定性)或随访结束时(MD为0.12,95% CI为-0.02至0.26;1项研究,93名参与者;低确定性),阻力训练可能对舒适步行速度(m/sec)产生很少或没有有益影响。阻力训练对平衡指标有轻微改善作用(效果小)。 2)干预结束时(SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 ~ 0.80; I²= 24%;5项研究,190名受试者;低确定性)和随访结束时(SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 ~ 0.85; 1项研究,93名受试者;低确定性)。没有证据表明参与抗阻训练干预会产生不良反应。依从性良好,尽管有一些由于阻力训练干预而退出。总的来说,证据的确定性受到不精确性和偏见风险的限制。作者的结论是:阻力训练对干预结束或随访后的死亡率没有影响。由于数据不足,我们无法得出阻力训练对残疾、心脑血管事件二级预防或这些风险的影响的结论。阻力训练可能会增加手臂和腿部的肌肉力量,特别是在干预结束时未受影响的一侧。对舒适的步行速度几乎没有影响,可能是因为干预措施与步行的任务相关程度不够。然而,在平衡方面可能会有微小的改善,这种改善在随访中持续存在。坚持抗阻训练干预没有发生严重的不良事件或不良反应,但可能不是每个人都能接受。后续数据不足,无法得出关于保留福利的结论。需要进一步精心设计的随机试验来确定最佳的运动处方、益处和长期效果。资金来源:Cochrane综述没有专门的资金来源。注册:协议[和以前的版本]可通过DOI 10.1002/14651858获得。CD003316 CD003316 [DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub7 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub6 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub5 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub4 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。pub3, DOI / 10.1002/14651858. cd003316.pub2]。
Rationale: Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Low muscle strength is common, particularly on the affected side, and is associated with post-stroke disability. Resistance training exercise interventions could increase muscle strength, improve physical function and reduce disability, and may benefit secondary prevention.
Objectives: The primary objective of this review is to determine whether resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.
Search methods: In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP), together with reference checking, citation tracking and contact with experts in the field, to identify eligible studies.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing resistance training interventions with comparators of either usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke.
Outcomes: Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of the longest follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition and fatigue.
Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool to assess bias in the included studies.
Synthesis methods: Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of the intervention and at the end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. For outcomes not analysed using meta-analysis, we followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.
Included studies: We included a total of 27 studies with 1004 participants, with an average age of 62 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (18/27) during the sub-acute (10/27) and chronic (16/27) stages of recovery living in high-income countries (18/27). Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (17/27). A follow-up period was included in 8/27 studies (mean 9.9 months; range 2 to 48 months). Interventions typically involved exercise machines (16/27) or bodyweight exercises (10/27) delivered two to three days per week for between two and 12 weeks, which progressed on the basis of intensity and/or volume.
Synthesis of results: Resistance training does not increase (or decrease) deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 24 studies, 880 participants; high-certainty) or follow-up (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 202 participants; high-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of resistance training on indices of disability at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.24 to 1.33; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). There is a moderate-sized effect (SMD > 0.5) but there was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may have little or no effect on the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (all-cause) at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may reduce systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.42 to 24.42; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training probably improves multiple indices of musculoskeletal fitness at the end of intervention (overall moderate-certainty). Improvements in muscle strength occurred in the legs on the affected (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) and least affected sides (large effect SMD > 0.8), and both arms (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) although the evidence is less certain on the affected arm. Overall, there were very few data at the end of follow-up and overall effects were very uncertain. Resistance training probably results in little or no beneficial effect on comfortable walking speed (m/sec) at the end of intervention (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; I² = 43%; 6 studies, 212 participants; moderate-certainty) or the end of follow-up (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). Resistance training may improve indices of balance slightly (small effect SMD > 0.2) at the end of intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.80; I² = 24%; 5 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.85; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). There was no evidence concerning adverse effects attributable to participating in resistance training interventions. Adherence was good, although there were some dropouts attributable to the resistance training intervention. Overall, evidence certainty was limited by imprecision and risk of bias concerns.
Authors' conclusions: Resistance training does not affect mortality at the end of intervention or after follow-up. We could not draw conclusions about resistance training effects on disability, secondary prevention of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or the risk of these because the data were inadequate. Resistance training probably increases muscle strength in the arms and legs, particularly on the unaffected side at the end of intervention. There was little or no effect on comfortable walking speed, possibly because the interventions were insufficiently task-related to walking. However, there may be a small improvement in balance which persists at follow-up. Resistance training interventions were adhered to without serious adverse events or adverse effects, but may not be acceptable to everyone. Inadequate data at follow-up prevented conclusions about retention of benefits. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the benefits and long-term effects.
Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.
Registration: Protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 [DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2].
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.