Completion and adherence rates to exercise interventions in intermittent claudication: Traditional exercise versus alternative exercise – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent claudication, defined as fatigue or pain in the legs while walking, is a common symptom in peripheral arterial disease. Although exercise effectively improves function and manages symptoms, adherence rates are not ideal. The high levels of pain experienced in traditional exercise programmes may explain the suboptimal adherence. Alternative modalities of exercise can elicit similar benefits to traditional walking exercise. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare completion and adherence rates of exercise programmes in traditional exercise interventions versus alternative exercise interventions among patients with intermittent claudication. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The electronic databases of Medline, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL were searched from the earliest records to March 2018. Search terms were based on 'peripheral artery disease' and 'exercise'. Studies were included if they involved structured exercise and explicitly reported the number of participants that commenced and completed the programme. RESULTS: The search identified 6814 records based on inclusion criteria. Eighty-four full-text records were reviewed in further detail. Out of the 84 studies, there was a total of 122 separate exercise groups, with 64 groups of 'traditional walking exercise' and 58 groups of 'alternative exercise'. Completion and adherence rates for traditional exercise were 80.8% and 77.6%, respectively. Completion and adherence rates for alternative exercise were 86.6% and 85.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of alternative modalities of exercise, which have been proved to be as effective as traditional exercise, may offer a solution to the poor participation and adherence rates to exercise in this population.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".