Effects of Arm-Crank Exercise on Fitness and Health in Adults With Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) may benefit less from exercise training due to consequences of their injury, leading to lower cardiorespiratory fitness and higher risks of developing cardiovascular diseases. Arm-crank exercise (ACE) is the most common form of volitional aerobic exercise used by people with SCI outside a hospital. However, evidence regarding the specific effects of ACE alone on fitness and health in adults with SCI is currently lacking. Hence, this review aimed to determine the effects of ACE on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, motor function, health-related quality of life (QoL), and adverse events in adults with chronic SCI. Inclusion criteria were: inactive adults (≥18 years) with chronic SCI (>12 months post injury); used ACE alone as an intervention; measured at least one of the following outcomes; cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, cardiovascular disease risk factors, motor function, health-related QoL, and adverse events. Evidence was synthesized and appraised using GRADE. Eighteen studies with a combined total of 235 participants having an injury between C4 to L3 were included. There was a moderate certainty of the body of evidence on ACE improving cardiorespiratory fitness. Exercise prescriptions from the included studies were 30–40 min of light to vigorous-intensity exercise, 3–5 times per week for 2–16 weeks. GRADE confidence ratings were very low for ACE improving body composition, CVD risks factors, motor function, or health-related QoL. No evidence suggests ACE increases the risk of developing shoulder pain or other injuries. Overall, this review recommends adults with chronic SCI should engage in regular ACE to improve cardiorespiratory fitness. More high-quality, larger-scale studies are needed to increase the level of evidence of ACE in improving cardiorespiratory fitness and to determine the effects of ACE on other outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_reco rd.php?ID=CRD42021221952 ], identifier [CRD42021221952].
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".