基于数字的干预措施对成人肌肉力量的影响:一项具有证据质量评估的随机对照试验的系统综述、荟萃分析和元回归。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Armin Paravlic, Luka Šlosar, Ensar Abazovic, Uros Marusic
{"title":"基于数字的干预措施对成人肌肉力量的影响:一项具有证据质量评估的随机对照试验的系统综述、荟萃分析和元回归。","authors":"Armin Paravlic, Luka Šlosar, Ensar Abazovic, Uros Marusic","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2023.2230886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the last three decades, both medical and sports science professionals have recognized the considerable potential of digital-based interventions (DBI) to enhance the health-related outcomes of their practitioners.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and potential moderators of DBI on measures of muscular strength.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SportDiscus, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar) were searched for eligible studies up to June 2022. The GRADE, PEDRO, and TIDieR checklists were used to assess the quality of evidence, methodology, and completeness of intervention descriptions, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 56 studies were included in the meta-analysis (<i>n</i> = 2346), and participants were classified as healthy (<i>n</i> = 918), stroke survivors (<i>n</i> = 572), diagnosed with other neurological disorders (<i>n</i> = 683), and frail (<i>n</i> = 173). The DBI showed a small effect (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.28, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31; <i>p</i> < 0.001) on strength, regardless of the type of intervention, control group, or tested body part. More specifically, while splitting the studies into different subgroups, a meta-analysis of 19 studies (<i>n</i> = 918) showed a small effect (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; <i>p</i> = 0.003) on strength in the asymptomatic population. Similarly, small but positive effects of DBI were observed for stroke survivors (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.56; <i>p</i> = 0.002), patients diagnosed with other neurological disorders (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32; <i>p</i> = 0.021), and the frail population (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.5; <i>p</i> = 0.051). Sub-group analysis and meta-regression revealed that neither variable modified the effects of the DBI on measures of strength.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, DBI may serve as an effective method to improve measures of strength in adults, regardless of their health status as well as the type of digital device, the presence of human-computer interaction, and the age of participants. In addition, the DBI was found to be more effective than traditional training or rehabilitation methods.KEY MESSAGESDigital-based intervention (DBI) is effective in improving measures of muscular strength in adults regardless of participants' health statusDBIs were equally effective for strength improvements in lower and upper limbsAlthough, DBIs were found to be effective in improving muscular strength, most studies did not follow strength training guidelines when prescribing the interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8371,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10901531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of digital-based interventions on muscular strength in adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials with quality of evidence assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Armin Paravlic, Luka Šlosar, Ensar Abazovic, Uros Marusic\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07853890.2023.2230886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the last three decades, both medical and sports science professionals have recognized the considerable potential of digital-based interventions (DBI) to enhance the health-related outcomes of their practitioners.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and potential moderators of DBI on measures of muscular strength.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SportDiscus, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar) were searched for eligible studies up to June 2022. The GRADE, PEDRO, and TIDieR checklists were used to assess the quality of evidence, methodology, and completeness of intervention descriptions, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 56 studies were included in the meta-analysis (<i>n</i> = 2346), and participants were classified as healthy (<i>n</i> = 918), stroke survivors (<i>n</i> = 572), diagnosed with other neurological disorders (<i>n</i> = 683), and frail (<i>n</i> = 173). The DBI showed a small effect (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.28, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31; <i>p</i> < 0.001) on strength, regardless of the type of intervention, control group, or tested body part. More specifically, while splitting the studies into different subgroups, a meta-analysis of 19 studies (<i>n</i> = 918) showed a small effect (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; <i>p</i> = 0.003) on strength in the asymptomatic population. Similarly, small but positive effects of DBI were observed for stroke survivors (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.56; <i>p</i> = 0.002), patients diagnosed with other neurological disorders (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32; <i>p</i> = 0.021), and the frail population (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.5; <i>p</i> = 0.051). Sub-group analysis and meta-regression revealed that neither variable modified the effects of the DBI on measures of strength.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, DBI may serve as an effective method to improve measures of strength in adults, regardless of their health status as well as the type of digital device, the presence of human-computer interaction, and the age of participants. In addition, the DBI was found to be more effective than traditional training or rehabilitation methods.KEY MESSAGESDigital-based intervention (DBI) is effective in improving measures of muscular strength in adults regardless of participants' health statusDBIs were equally effective for strength improvements in lower and upper limbsAlthough, DBIs were found to be effective in improving muscular strength, most studies did not follow strength training guidelines when prescribing the interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10901531/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2230886\",\"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":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2023.2230886","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

背景:在过去的三十年里,医学和体育科学专业人士都认识到基于数字的干预措施(DBI)在提高从业者健康相关结果方面的巨大潜力。目的:本研究旨在探讨DBI在肌肉力量测量中的有效性和潜在调节因子。方法:检索截至2022年6月的六个数据库(PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science、SportDiscus、Embase、Cochrane对照试验注册中心和Google Scholar),以查找符合条件的研究。GRADE、PEDRO和TIDieR检查表分别用于评估干预描述的证据质量、方法和完整性。结果:共有56项研究被纳入荟萃分析(n = 2346),并且参与者被分类为健康(n = 918),中风幸存者(n = 572),诊断为其他神经系统疾病(n = 683)和虚弱(n = 173)。DBI显示出较小的影响(标准化平均差[SMD] = 0.28,95%可信区间0.21至0.31;p n = 918)显示出较小的影响(SMD=0.38,95%CI 0.12至0.63;p = 0.003)。同样,DBI对中风幸存者的影响较小但积极(SMD=0.34,95%CI 0.13至0.56;p = 0.002),诊断为其他神经系统疾病的患者(SMD=0.17,95%CI 0.03至0.32;p = 0.021),以及体弱人群(SMD=0.25,95%CI 0.0至0.5;p = 0.051)。亚组分析和元回归显示,这两个变量都没有改变DBI对强度测量的影响。结论:总的来说,DBI可以作为一种有效的方法来改善成年人的力量测量,无论他们的健康状况、数字设备的类型、人机交互的存在以及参与者的年龄如何。此外,DBI被发现比传统的训练或康复方法更有效。关键信息基于数字的干预措施(DBI)在改善成人肌肉力量方面是有效的,无论参与者的健康状况如何。DBI对改善下肢和上肢的力量同样有效。尽管发现DBI在改善肌肉力量方面有效,但大多数研究在制定干预措施时没有遵循力量训练指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of digital-based interventions on muscular strength in adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials with quality of evidence assessment.

Background: In the last three decades, both medical and sports science professionals have recognized the considerable potential of digital-based interventions (DBI) to enhance the health-related outcomes of their practitioners.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and potential moderators of DBI on measures of muscular strength.

Methods: Six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SportDiscus, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar) were searched for eligible studies up to June 2022. The GRADE, PEDRO, and TIDieR checklists were used to assess the quality of evidence, methodology, and completeness of intervention descriptions, respectively.

Results: A total of 56 studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2346), and participants were classified as healthy (n = 918), stroke survivors (n = 572), diagnosed with other neurological disorders (n = 683), and frail (n = 173). The DBI showed a small effect (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.28, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31; p < 0.001) on strength, regardless of the type of intervention, control group, or tested body part. More specifically, while splitting the studies into different subgroups, a meta-analysis of 19 studies (n = 918) showed a small effect (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; p = 0.003) on strength in the asymptomatic population. Similarly, small but positive effects of DBI were observed for stroke survivors (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.56; p = 0.002), patients diagnosed with other neurological disorders (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.32; p = 0.021), and the frail population (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.5; p = 0.051). Sub-group analysis and meta-regression revealed that neither variable modified the effects of the DBI on measures of strength.

Conclusions: Overall, DBI may serve as an effective method to improve measures of strength in adults, regardless of their health status as well as the type of digital device, the presence of human-computer interaction, and the age of participants. In addition, the DBI was found to be more effective than traditional training or rehabilitation methods.KEY MESSAGESDigital-based intervention (DBI) is effective in improving measures of muscular strength in adults regardless of participants' health statusDBIs were equally effective for strength improvements in lower and upper limbsAlthough, DBIs were found to be effective in improving muscular strength, most studies did not follow strength training guidelines when prescribing the interventions.

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
Annals of medicine
Annals of medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
292
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Medicine is one of the world’s leading general medical review journals, boasting an impact factor of 5.435. It presents high-quality topical review articles, commissioned by the Editors and Editorial Committee, as well as original articles. The journal provides the current opinion on recent developments across the major medical specialties, with a particular focus on internal medicine. The peer-reviewed content of the journal keeps readers updated on the latest advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of diseases, and in how molecular medicine and genetics can be applied in daily clinical practice.
×
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