MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4290643196 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.05.22278397

The effect of exercise on aerobic capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

2022· review· en· W4290643196 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel D. Hodgkiss, Gurjeet S. Bhangu, Carole Lunny, Catherine R. Jutzeler, Shin‐Yi Chiou, Matthias Walter, Samuel J. E. Lucas, Andrei V. Krassioukov, Tom E. Nightingale

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreVancouver Coastal HealthSt. Michael's HospitalInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInternational Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of Birmingham
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessObservational studyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseMeta-regressionSubgroup analysisCohort studySystematic reviewInternal medicineStrictly standardized mean differenceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background A low level of cardiorespiratory fitness [CRF; defined as peak oxygen uptake (V̇O 2peak ) or peak power output (PPO)] is a widely reported consequence of spinal cord injury (SCI) and a major risk factor associated with chronic disease. However, CRF can be modified by exercise. This systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression aimed to assess whether certain SCI characteristics and/or specific exercise considerations are moderators of changes in CRF. Methods and Findings Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science) were searched from inception to March 2023. A primary meta-analysis was conducted including randomised controlled trials (RCTs; exercise interventions lasting >2 weeks relative to control groups). A secondary meta-analysis pooled independent exercise interventions >2 weeks from longitudinal pre-post and RCT studies to explore whether subgroup differences in injury characteristics and/or exercise intervention parameters explained CRF changes. Further analyses included cohort, cross-sectional and observational study designs. Outcome measures of interest were absolute (AV̇O 2peak ) or relative V̇O 2peak (RV̇O 2peak ), and/or PPO. Bias/quality was assessed via The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tools. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Random effects models were used in all meta-analyses and meta-regressions. Of 21,020 identified records, 120 studies comprising 29 RCTs, 67 pre-post studies, 11 cohort, 7 cross-sectional and 6 observational studies were included. The primary meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in AV̇O 2peak [0.16 (0.07, 0.25) L/min], RV̇O 2peak [2.9 (1.8, 3.9) mL/kg/min] and PPO [9 (5, 14) W] with exercise, relative to controls ( p <0.001). Ninety-six studies (117 independent exercise interventions comprising 1,331 participants) were included in the secondary, pooled meta-analysis which demonstrated that exercise interventions significantly improve AV̇O 2peak [0.22 (0.17, 0.26) L/min], RV̇O 2peak [2.8 (2.2, 3.3) mL/kg/min], and PPO [11 (9, 13) W] ( p <0.001). There were subgroup differences for RV̇O 2peak based on exercise modality ( p =0.002) and intervention length ( p =0.01), but there were no differences for AV̇O 2peak . There were subgroup differences ( p ≤0.008) for PPO based on time since injury, neurological level of injury, exercise modality, relative exercise intensity, exercise intensity prescription method, and frequency. The meta-regression found that studies with a higher mean age of participants were associated with smaller changes in AV̇O 2peak and RV̇O 2peak ( p <0.10). GRADE indicated a moderate level of certainty in the estimated effect for RV̇O 2peak , but low levels for AV̇O 2peak and PPO. This review may be limited by the small number of RCTs, which prevented a subgroup analysis within this specific study design. Conclusions Performing exercise >2 weeks results in significant improvements to AV̇O 2peak , RV̇O 2peak and PPO in individuals with SCI. Subgroup comparisons identified that exercise interventions lasting up to 12 weeks yield the greatest change in RV̇O 2peak . Upper-body aerobic exercise and resistance training also appear the most effective at improving RV̇O 2peak and PPO. Furthermore, acutely-injured, individuals with paraplegia, exercising at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity, prescribed via a percentage of oxygen consumption or heart rate, for ≥3 sessions/week will likely experience the greatest change in PPO. Ageing seemingly diminishes the adaptive CRF responses to exercise training in individuals with SCI. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42018104342 AUTHOR SUMMARY Why was this research done? - Individuals with spinal cord injury typically exhibit low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness. As such, these individuals are at a higher risk for the development of chronic diseases in comparison to the non-injured population. - The current spinal cord injury-specific exercise guidelines encourage moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic exercise 40 minutes per week for fitness benefits or 90 minutes per week for cardiometabolic health benefits. Yet, others have suggested individuals with spinal cord injury should be achieving 150 minutes per week in line with non-injured population guidelines. - This systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression aimed to identify whether specific injury characteristics (e.g., time, level or severity of injury) or exercise intervention parameters (e.g., modality, intensity, volume etc.) result in the greatest changes in cardiorespiratory fitness in individuals with spinal cord injury. What did the researchers do and find? - We searched for studies that investigated the effects of exercise interventions lasting longer than 2 weeks on changes in absolute and relative peak oxygen consumption and/or peak power output in individuals with spinal cord injury. In total, we included 120 studies of various study designs: 29 randomised controlled trials, 67 pre-post studies, 11 cohort comparisons, 7 cross-sectional studies and 6 observational studies. - The greatest changes in peak power output may be achieved by individuals with acute spinal cord injury or paraplegia. Upper-body aerobic and resistance exercise were identified as the most optimal exercise modalities. Furthermore, prescribing moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic exercise using either a percentage of the individual’s peak heart rate or oxygen consumption, for three or more sessions per week, resulted in the greatest improvements in peak power output. - Our findings support the minimum 40 minutes of weekly moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise recommended by the spinal cord injury-specific exercise guidelines to significantly improve fitness. However, while not statistically significant, a two-fold greater improvement in peak power output was shown for interventions with exercise performed ≥90 min/week in comparison to ≥40 min/week. Cross-sectional comparisons also revealed that individuals with spinal cord injury performing higher levels of physical activity were associated with higher cardiorespiratory fitness. What do these findings mean? - Exercise interventions >2 weeks can significantly improve cardiorespiratory fitness in individuals with a spinal cord injury by a clinically meaningful change greater than one spinal cord injury adjusted metabolic equivalent (i.e., ≥2.7 mL/kg/min). A one metabolic equivalent improvement has been associated with a reduction in cardiovascular related mortality risk in non-injured individuals. - Our findings indicate that certain participant/injury characteristics and exercise intervention parameters are moderators of the changes observed in cardiorespiratory fitness across studies. These factors should be considered in the design of future exercise interventions. Future research should consider: following spinal cord injury-specific reporting guidelines (ensuring transparency o

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.065
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→