Outcomes of Exercise Interventions in Patients With Advanced Liver Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Frailty and sarcopenia are common complications of advanced liver disease. Owing to associated morbidity/mortality, there have been targeted efforts to prevent and/or improve both by enrolling these patients in focused exercise programs. This review systematically analyzes the data of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on anthropometric, physical fitness, quality-of-life, and safety outcomes of exercise interventions in patients with advanced liver disease. METHODS: Two authors independently searched trials on PubMed and EMBASE from inception up to November 18, 2021. A third independent arbitrator adjudicated all disagreements. We qualitatively summarized these outcomes as follows: (i) muscular fitness (maximal inspiratory/expiratory pressures, muscle size, muscle strength, and bioimpedance testing), (ii) cardiorespiratory fitness (cardiopulmonary exercise testing and 6-minute walk distance), (iii) quality of life, and (iv) others (safety or frailty indices). RESULTS: There were 11 RCTs (4 home-based interventions) with 358 participants. Interventions ranged from 8 to 14 weeks and included cycling, walking, resistance exercises, balance and coordination training, and respiratory exercises. All described outcomes compared preintervention with postintervention measurements. Nine studies showed statistically significant improvements in at least 1 physical fitness variable. Ten studies showed statistically significant improvements in at least 1 muscular fitness variable. Six studies showed statistically significant improvements in at least 1 quality-of-life variable. Attrition rates ranged from 5% to 36%, and adherence rates ranged very widely from 14% to 100%. Only 1 study reported frailty indices. Notably, no complications of portal hypertension were seen in intervention groups in the 9 studies that reported these data. DISCUSSION: A review of 11 RCTs with 358 participants with advanced liver disease demonstrates that exercise interventions can have favorable outcomes on muscular/cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life. Although attrition and adherence varied, these interventions seem to be safe in patients with cirrhosis and are well tolerated.
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 | 0.018 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".