MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1545889596 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004017.pub2

Home versus center based physical activity programs in older adults

2005· review· en· W1545889596 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePhysical Activity and Health
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCINAHLPhysical therapyPsychological interventionMEDLINEGerontologyFamily medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a leading cause of preventable death and morbidity in developed countries. In addition physical activity can potentially be an effective treatment for various medical conditions (e.g. cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis). Many types of physical activity programs exist ranging from simple home exercise programs to intense highly supervised hospital (center) based programs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of 'home based' versus 'center based' physical activity programs on the health of older adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1991-present), MEDLINE (1966-Sept 2002), EMBASE (1988 to Sept 2002), CINAHL (1982-Sept 2002), Health Star (1975-Sept 2002), Dissertation Abstracts (1980 to Sept 2002), Sport Discus (1975-Sept 2002) and Science Citation Index (1975-Sept 2002), reference lists of relevant articles and contacted principal authors where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of different physical activity interventions in older adults (50 years or older) comparing a 'home based' to a 'center based' exercise program. Study participants had to have either a recognised cardiovascular risk factor, or existing cardiovascular disease, or chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) or osteoarthritis. Cardiac and post-operative programs within one year of the event were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers selected and appraised the identified studies independently. Data from studies that then met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were extracted by two additional reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials including 224 participants who received a 'home based' exercise program and 148 who received a 'center based' exercise program were included in this review. Five studies were of medium quality and one poor. A meta-analysis was not undertaken given the heterogeneity of these studies. CARDIOVASCULAR. The largest trial (accounting for approximately 60% of the participants) looked at sedentary older adults. Three trials looked at patients with peripheral vascular disease (intermittent claudication). In patients with peripheral vascular disease center based programs were superior to home at improving distance walked and time to claudication pain at up to 6 months. However the risk of a training effect may be high. There are no longer term studies in this population. Notably home based programs appeared to have a significantly higher adherence rate than center based programs. However this was based primarily on the one study (with the highest quality rating of the studies found) of sedentary older adults. This showed an adherence rate of 68% in the home based program at two year follow-up compared with a 36% adherence in the center based group. There was essentially no difference in terms of treadmill performance or cardiovascular risk factors between groups. CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD). Two trials looked at older adults with COPD. In patients with COPD the evidence is conflicting. One study showed similar changes in various physiological measures at 3 months that persisted in the home based group up to 18 months but not in the center based group. The other study showed significantly better improvements in physiological measures in the center based group after 8 weeks but again the possibility of a training effect is high. OSTEOARTHRITIS. No studies were found. None of the studies dealt with measures of cost, or health service utilization. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, center based programs are superior to home based programs in patients with PVD. There is a high possibility of a training effect however as the center based groups were trained primarily on treadmills (and the home based were not) and the outcome measures were treadmill based. There is conflicting evidence which is better in patients with COPD. Home based programs appear to be superior to center based programs in terms of the adherence to exercise (especially in the long-term).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,274
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0140,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,217
Tête enseignante GPT0,435
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle