Effects of Exercise Intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise and physical activity have been deemed as potentially beneficial for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise interventions on health-related quality of life in patients with SLE using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials published up to July 2021 were examined using the PubMed and Embase databases. Of the 1158 articles retrieved, nine were included for systematic review. Five of them were randomized controlled trials and these were assessed using meta-analysis. Hedges’ g effect size was 0.47; 95% (confidence interval 0.21–0.73; p < 0.001) for the physical health and function aspect of health-related quality of life. None of the other seven domains of the SF-36 showed a significant effect size. However, the latter finding was limited by the small number of available trials. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis supported that exercise intervention compared to usual care might be able to improve the physical functioning domain of health-related quality of life in patients with SLE. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials that incorporate disease-specific health-related quality of life measures are needed to elucidate the role of exercise on health-related quality of life in patients with SLE.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".