M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, R. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, D. Bouchard, A. Giguere, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Tang, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere
{"title":"身体活动干预对老年体弱或易疲劳患者的有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, R. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, D. Bouchard, A. Giguere, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Tang, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20200222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Physical activity is known to prevent frailty and reduce its consequences; however, it remains unclear which interventions are optimal for older adults with frailty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective physical activity interventions in improving outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions in adults aged 65 years or more who were prefrail or frail; we included observational and cohort studies when there were no RCT data. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, physical function, cognitive function, use of health care services and quality of life. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. Results: We identified 26 studies (24 RCTs [1 of which did not have any relevant outcomes for extraction] and 2 observational studies) involving 8022 prefrail or frail older adults. Nine studies had low risk of bias, 2 had high risk of bias, and for 13 the risk of bias was unclear. The trials included mixed (aerobic and muscle-strengthening) (n = 13), muscle-strengthening (n = 8), mobilization and rehabilitation (n = 4) or aerobic (n = 1) activities. Significant effects were found for mobility (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.83), activities of daily living (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84), cognitive function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61), quality of life (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.07) and frailty (SMD −1.29, 95% CI −2.22 to −0.36; risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is low-to moderate-level evidence that various physical activity interventions are beneficial for prefrail and frail older adults. Studies need to better define frailty to ensure the identification and implementation of such interventions into clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144556","PeriodicalId":93946,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"M. Racey, M. Ali, D. Sherifali, D. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, R. Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, D. Bouchard, A. Giguere, J. Holroyd-Leduc, A. Tang, L. Gramlich, H. Keller, J. Prorok, P. Kim, A. Lorbergs, J. Muscedere\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20200222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Physical activity is known to prevent frailty and reduce its consequences; however, it remains unclear which interventions are optimal for older adults with frailty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective physical activity interventions in improving outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions in adults aged 65 years or more who were prefrail or frail; we included observational and cohort studies when there were no RCT data. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, physical function, cognitive function, use of health care services and quality of life. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. Results: We identified 26 studies (24 RCTs [1 of which did not have any relevant outcomes for extraction] and 2 observational studies) involving 8022 prefrail or frail older adults. Nine studies had low risk of bias, 2 had high risk of bias, and for 13 the risk of bias was unclear. The trials included mixed (aerobic and muscle-strengthening) (n = 13), muscle-strengthening (n = 8), mobilization and rehabilitation (n = 4) or aerobic (n = 1) activities. Significant effects were found for mobility (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.83), activities of daily living (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84), cognitive function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61), quality of life (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.07) and frailty (SMD −1.29, 95% CI −2.22 to −0.36; risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is low-to moderate-level evidence that various physical activity interventions are beneficial for prefrail and frail older adults. Studies need to better define frailty to ensure the identification and implementation of such interventions into clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144556\",\"PeriodicalId\":93946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
摘要
背景:众所周知,体育活动可以预防虚弱并减少其后果;然而,目前尚不清楚哪些干预措施最适合患有虚弱的老年人。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以确定有效的体育活动干预措施来改善与虚弱相关的结果。方法:我们在MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和CINAHL(开始至2019年7月)中搜索了针对65岁或65岁以上运动前或虚弱成年人的体育活动干预的英语随机对照试验(RCT);在没有随机对照试验数据的情况下,我们纳入了观察性和队列研究。感兴趣的结果是虚弱、行动能力、身体功能、认知功能、医疗服务的使用和生活质量。数据提取后,我们使用随机对照试验的Cochrane协作偏倚风险工具和观察性研究的Newcastle–Ottawa量表评估偏倚风险,使用推荐、评估、发展和评估分级(GRADE)方法对证据的确定性进行评级,并评估统计学和方法学的异质性。结果:我们确定了26项研究(24项随机对照试验[其中1项没有任何相关的提取结果]和2项观察性研究),涉及8022名轨前或体弱的老年人。9项研究存在低偏倚风险,2项研究存在高偏倚风险。13项研究的偏倚风险尚不清楚。试验包括混合(有氧和肌肉强化)(n=13)、肌肉强化(n=8)、动员和康复(n=4)或有氧(n=1)活动。流动性(标准化平均差[SMD]0.60,95%置信区间[CI]0.37至0.83)、日常生活活动(SMD 0.50,95%CI 0.15至0.84)、认知功能(SMD 0.35,95%CI 0.09至0.61)、生活质量(SMD 0.60,95%CI 0.13至1.07)和虚弱(SMD−1.29,95%CI−2.22至−0.36;风险比0.58,95%CI 0.36至0.93)受到显著影响,证据的确定性适中。解释:有中低水平的证据表明,各种体育活动干预措施对飞行前和体弱的老年人有益。研究需要更好地定义虚弱,以确保在临床实践中识别和实施此类干预措施。PROSPERO注册号:CRD42020144556
Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Physical activity is known to prevent frailty and reduce its consequences; however, it remains unclear which interventions are optimal for older adults with frailty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective physical activity interventions in improving outcomes related to frailty. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions in adults aged 65 years or more who were prefrail or frail; we included observational and cohort studies when there were no RCT data. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, physical function, cognitive function, use of health care services and quality of life. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. Results: We identified 26 studies (24 RCTs [1 of which did not have any relevant outcomes for extraction] and 2 observational studies) involving 8022 prefrail or frail older adults. Nine studies had low risk of bias, 2 had high risk of bias, and for 13 the risk of bias was unclear. The trials included mixed (aerobic and muscle-strengthening) (n = 13), muscle-strengthening (n = 8), mobilization and rehabilitation (n = 4) or aerobic (n = 1) activities. Significant effects were found for mobility (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.83), activities of daily living (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84), cognitive function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61), quality of life (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.07) and frailty (SMD −1.29, 95% CI −2.22 to −0.36; risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93), with moderate certainty of evidence. Interpretation: There is low-to moderate-level evidence that various physical activity interventions are beneficial for prefrail and frail older adults. Studies need to better define frailty to ensure the identification and implementation of such interventions into clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020144556