Systematic Review of Exercise Studies in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis: Exploring the Quality of Interventions According to the Principles of Exercise Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review is to explore the application and reporting of (i) the principles of exercise training in exercise trials, (ii) the components of exercise prescription, and (iii) the adherence towards the prescribed programmes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Embase electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 16 October 2020. RCTs comprising at least 3 weeks of aerobic and/or resistance exercise intervention in pwMS that reported at least one physiological outcome and were published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 52 RCTs included in this review, 58 intervention arms were examined. None applied more than four principles of exercise training. Specificity was addressed by 85%, progression by 33%, overload by 59%, initial values by 26%, reversibility by 0% and diminishing returns by 2% of trials. Fifty-two percent of trials reported all components of exercise prescription, and 3% of trials reported the level of adherence to the prescribed exercise. CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals that exercise training principles were not respected in the majority of included RCTs. The weak quality of reported exercise interventions limits the interpretation of the studies' results and potentially leads to an underestimation of 'exercise as medicine' in pwMS. Also, the vague descriptions of exercise prescription and adherence impede the reproducibility of results. Future studies must attend to all principles of exercise training and provide transparent information on the prescribed and performed programmes to develop specific and valid exercise recommendations for pwMS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020162671, 28/04/2020, PROSPERO.
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 | 0.064 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".