MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040686964 · doi:10.1159/000346075

Using Aerobic Exercise to Improve Health Outcomes and Quality of Life in Stroke: Evidence-Based Exercise Prescription Recommendations

2013· review· en· W2040686964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exercisePhysical therapyStroke (engine)Quality of life (healthcare)Exercise prescriptionPsychosocialSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialModalitiesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke patients often suffer from poor cardiovascular health and deficits in physical, psychosocial and cognitive functioning. Aerobic exercise training may be a viable treatment approach to address these health issues. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effects of aerobic exercise on various indicators of health, functioning and quality of life in stroke patients. It was hypothesized that the systematic review would reveal compelling support for the effectiveness of aerobic exercise in stroke patients, such that detailed evidence-based exercise prescription recommendations could be derived. METHODS: Major electronic databases were searched systematically to identify randomized controlled studies that examined the effects of aerobic exercise in stroke patients (last search performed in January 2012). The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using the PEDro scale (9-10 = excellent; 6-8 = good; 4-5 = fair; <4 = poor). Based on the methodological quality and sample size used, the level of evidence was determined for each study (level 1: PEDro ≥6 and sample size >50; level 2: PEDro ≤5 or sample size ≤50). Meta-analysis was performed on a given outcome when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled the selection criteria, of which 8 were level 1 studies. Treadmill and cycle ergometer were the two most popular modalities used to provide aerobic training. The most commonly adopted exercise session duration and frequency was 21-40 min and 3-5 days per week, respectively. The duration of the training programme varied, ranging from 3 weeks to 6 months. Over 60% of the trials used a high training intensity [60-80% heart rate reserve (HRR)]. Meta-analysis showed a significant effect on peak oxygen consumption (p < 0.001), peak workload (p < 0.001), maximal gait speed (p = 0.003) and walking endurance (p < 0.001) in favour of aerobic exercise. Meta-analysis revealed no significant effect on self-selected gait speed, Berg balance score and Functional Independence Measure score. The efficacy of aerobic exercise in improving other health outcomes in physical, psychosocial and cognitive domains as well as quality of life was inconclusive. The health risk associated with engaging in such exercise is small. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that aerobic exercise (40-50% HRR progressing to 60-80%) conducted 20-40 min and 3-5 days per week is beneficial for enhancing aerobic fitness, walking speed and walking endurance in people who have had mild to moderate stroke and are deemed to have low cardiovascular risk with exercise after proper screening assessments (grade A recommendation). The effects of aerobic exercise on other health outcomes require further study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it