Uma Anand Raje, Tyler M. Saumur, Fernanda Pesce de Souza, S. Mathur, T. Janaudis-Ferreira
{"title":"实体器官移植受者运动干预报告的质量:系统回顾","authors":"Uma Anand Raje, Tyler M. Saumur, Fernanda Pesce de Souza, S. Mathur, T. Janaudis-Ferreira","doi":"10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Exercise training programs must be described in detail to facilitate replication and implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of exercise training program description in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. \nMethods: We evaluated 21 RCTs reporting on exercise interventions in SOT recipients that were included in a recent systematic review/meta-analysis conducted by the research team. This previous review investigated the effects of exercise training (versus no training) in adult SOT recipients. Several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception to May 2019. Three reviewers independently rated the exercise programs for SOT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). \nResults: Mean score of the CERT was 6/19. None of the RCTs described all items of the CERT. Items of crucial importance, such as adherence, whether the exercise was done individually or in a group, whether there were home program or non-exercise components, and the type and number of adverse events, were either not mentioned or not described in detail.\nConclusion: RCTs in exercise in SOT recipients did not satisfactorily report their exercise protocols, which can lead to difficulties in replication by researchers and implementation by clinicians.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of the reporting of exercise interventions in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Uma Anand Raje, Tyler M. Saumur, Fernanda Pesce de Souza, S. Mathur, T. Janaudis-Ferreira\",\"doi\":\"10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Exercise training programs must be described in detail to facilitate replication and implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of exercise training program description in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. \\nMethods: We evaluated 21 RCTs reporting on exercise interventions in SOT recipients that were included in a recent systematic review/meta-analysis conducted by the research team. This previous review investigated the effects of exercise training (versus no training) in adult SOT recipients. Several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception to May 2019. Three reviewers independently rated the exercise programs for SOT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). \\nResults: Mean score of the CERT was 6/19. None of the RCTs described all items of the CERT. Items of crucial importance, such as adherence, whether the exercise was done individually or in a group, whether there were home program or non-exercise components, and the type and number of adverse events, were either not mentioned or not described in detail.\\nConclusion: RCTs in exercise in SOT recipients did not satisfactorily report their exercise protocols, which can lead to difficulties in replication by researchers and implementation by clinicians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quality of the reporting of exercise interventions in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review
Background:Exercise training programs must be described in detail to facilitate replication and implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of exercise training program description in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.
Methods: We evaluated 21 RCTs reporting on exercise interventions in SOT recipients that were included in a recent systematic review/meta-analysis conducted by the research team. This previous review investigated the effects of exercise training (versus no training) in adult SOT recipients. Several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception to May 2019. Three reviewers independently rated the exercise programs for SOT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).
Results: Mean score of the CERT was 6/19. None of the RCTs described all items of the CERT. Items of crucial importance, such as adherence, whether the exercise was done individually or in a group, whether there were home program or non-exercise components, and the type and number of adverse events, were either not mentioned or not described in detail.
Conclusion: RCTs in exercise in SOT recipients did not satisfactorily report their exercise protocols, which can lead to difficulties in replication by researchers and implementation by clinicians.