MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1927074894 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008618.pub2

Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture

2013· review· en· W1927074894 sur OpenAlexafffund
Lora Giangregorio, Norma J. MacIntyre, Lehana Thabane, Carly J. Skidmore, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone health and osteoporosis research
Établissements canadiensHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicinePhysical therapyCINAHLCochrane LibraryMEDLINERehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)OsteoporosisPlaceboBone mineralAdverse effectMeta-analysisSports medicinePsychological interventionInternal medicineAlternative medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity (e.g., pain, reduced quality of life), and mortality. Therapeutic exercise is a non-pharmacologic conservative treatment that is often recommended for patients with vertebral fractures to reduce pain and restore functional movement. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions of four weeks or greater (alone or as part of a physical therapyintervention) versus non-exercise/non-active physical therapy intervention, no intervention or placebo on the incidence of future fractures and adverse events among adults with a history of osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s). We were also examined the effects of exercise on the following secondary outcomes: falls, pain, posture,physical function, balance,mobility, muscle function,quality of life and bone mineral density of the lumbar spine or hip measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).We also reported exercise adherence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Library ( Issue 11 of 12, November 2011), MEDLINE (2005 to 2011), EMBASE (1988 to November 23, 2011), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1982 to November 23, 2011), AMED (1985 to November 2011), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database, www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/index.html, 1929 to November 23, 2011. Ongoing and recently completed trials were identified by searching the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to December 2009). Conference proceedings were searched via ISI and SCOPUS, and targeted searches of proceedings of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Search terms or MeSH headings included terms such as vertebral fracture AND exercise OR physical therapy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials comparing exercise or active physical therapy interventions with placebo/non-exercise/non-active physical therapy interventions or no intervention implemented in individuals with a history of vertebral fracture and evaluating the outcomes of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data using a pre-tested data abstraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, or third party adjudication. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate each study. Studies were grouped according to duration of follow-up (i.e., a) four to 12 weeks; b) 16 to 24 weeks; and c) 52 weeks); a study could be represented in more than one group depending on the number of follow-up assessments. For continuous data, we report mean differences (MDs) of the change or percentage change from baseline. Data from two studies were pooled for one outcome using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (488 participants, four male participants) were included. Substantial variability across the seven trials prevented any meaningful pooling of data for most outcomes. No trials assessed the effect of exercise on incident fractures, adverse events or incident falls. Individual trials reported that exercise could improve pain, performance on the Timed Up and Go test, walking speed, back extensor strength, trunk muscle endurance, and quality of life. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution given that there were also reports of no significant difference between exercise and control groups for pain, Timed Up and Go test performance, trunk extensor muscle strength and quality of life. Pooled analyses from two studies revealed a significant between-group difference in favour of exercise for Timed Up and Go performance (MD -1.13 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.85 to -0.42, P = 0.002). Individual studies also reported no significant between-group differences for posture or bone mineral density. Adherence to exercise varied across studies. The risk of bias across all studies was variable; low risk across most domains in four studies, and unclear or high risk in most domains for three studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No definitive conclusions can be made regarding the benefits of exercise for individuals with vertebral fracture. Although individual trials did report benefits for some pain, physical function and quality of life outcomes, the findings should be interpreted with caution given that findings were inconsistent and the quality of evidence was very low. The small number of trials and variability across trials limited our ability to pool outcomes or make conclusions. Evidence regarding the effects of exercise after vertebral fracture, particularly for men, is scarce. A high-quality randomized trial is needed to inform exercise prescription for individuals with vertebral fractures.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,210
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0170,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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 Opus0,103
Tête enseignante GPT0,417
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations138
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetBone health and osteoporosis researchTravaux en français237 207