The effect of exercise intervention on improving sleep in menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sleep disturbance is common in menopausal women and negatively affects their quality of life and could cause increased risks of other menopause-related diseases. Objective This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence regarding the effects of exercise interventions on improving sleep in menopausal women. Methods A comprehensive search in seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed on June 3, 2022. The systematic review included seventeen trials, ten of which provided data for the meta-analysis. The effects on outcomes were presented as mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences (SMDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used in quality assessment. Results The results suggest that exercise intervention significantly reduces insomnia severity (SMD = −0.91, 95% CI = −1.45 to −0.36, Z = 3.27, P = 0.001) and alleviates sleep problems (MD = −0.09, 95% CI = −0.17 to −0.01, Z = 2.20, P = 0.03). For sleep quality, the results showed that insignificant differences were found between the exercise intervention and the control groups (MD = −0.93, 95% CI = −2.73 to 0.87, Z = 1.01, P = 0.31). The results of the subgroup analysis indicated that more apparent effects of exercise intervention were found among women with sleep disorders than among women without sleep disorders. Which exercise intervention duration was more beneficial to sleep outcomes could not be judged. Overall, there was a moderate risk of bias in the primary studies. Conclusion According to this meta-analysis, exercise interventions can be recommended for menopausal women to improve their sleep. High-quality RCTs applying different types of exercise (e.g., walking, yoga, meditative exercise and so on) with different intervention durations as well as subjective and objective sleep assessment are warranted. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022342277 , identifier: CRD42022342277.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".