118 Can we reasonably recommend strength training twice weekly for the general adult population aged 18-64 years to secure optimal body functionality?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose The objective of the study was to conduct a quality assessment of the scientific literature underlying the Danish Health Authorities (DHA) revised recommendations on physical activity (PA), with focus on the new advice on strength training twice a week to secure optimal body functionality in the adult population aged 18-64 years. Methods The study was a scoping review. Reviews conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO), the American and Canadian Health Authorities, and evidence referenced in earlier reports from DHA were included for initial review, as DHA refer to these as base for their PA-guideline revision. Studies included in the reviews were title- and abstract screened to assess whether they investigated PA and/or strength training in a population of adults aged 18-64 years. Studies identified through this screening, were furthermore full text screened, and finally included in a quality assessment, if they investigated a strength training intervention in relation to a measure of body functionality. The quality assessment was inspired by STROBE and the Jadad Scale (for observational studies and RCTs respectively) and extended with an assessment of the study’s research goal compliance (causal or predictive) to evaluate the study’s ability to detect eventual effects of the intervention on body functionality. Results A total of 25 out of 879 studies identified in the reviews were selected for quality assessment. Great variations in quality were identified, and many studies (13 out of 25) did not achieve 2/3 of potential quality points. The studies generally support strength training as an effective intervention on body functionality. However, 15 of the 16 RCTs investigated a study population with functional limitations, e.g. populations with musculoskeletal disorders, and most studies were based on a study population in the higher end of the age spectrum 18-64 years. Conclusions The literature does not clearly support a recommendation on strength training twice weekly for the general adult population to secure optimal body functionality. The formulation of PA-guidelines should be based on evidence that 1) aims to draw causal conclusions on the effect of the recommended intervention and 2) investigates a population comparable to the target audience. Funding None
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».