MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387679033 · doi:10.2196/49513

Resistance Training in Patients After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4387679033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Whitney Elks, Adam Rooks, Spencer Schulte, Kavita Batra, Jocelyn F. Burke, Varun Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLSystematic reviewMEDLINEWeight lossProtocol (science)Data extractionResistance trainingScopusStrength trainingPhysical therapySurgeryObesityInternal medicineAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resistance training has been consistently shown to have multiple health benefits, especially for patients who have undergone bariatric surgery. Patients who have undergone bariatric surgery are recommended to participate in resistance exercise; however, protocols and guidelines for resistance training remain poorly implemented. OBJECTIVE: This is a protocol for a systematic review and possibly a meta-analysis that will synthesize evidence of the effects of resistance exercise on changes in body composition, muscular strength, overall weight loss or maintenance of weight loss, and quality of life in patients after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). The findings of this study may provide practice recommendations for resistance training among patients who have undergone MBS. METHODS: We registered this systematic review on PROSPERO (CRD42023464928) on September 18, 2023. A systematic search of electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL) was conducted on studies published from January 1, 1991, to May 15, 2023, to identify English-language human studies on adult patients who have undergone MBS that include a resistance training intervention and describe outcome measurements of body composition or strength. Screening will be performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and relevant data elements will be extracted. RESULTS: Searches and screenings commenced in May 2023. Data extraction and analyses will be completed by the end of December 2023, after which findings will be synthesized and reported by the end of March 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the evidence regarding resistance training in patients after MBS. The findings from this systematic review and possible meta-analysis may provide practice recommendations for resistance training protocols in this patient population and identify characteristics of protocols with the best adherence and outcomes. With these results, we anticipate that we will gain a deeper understanding of the role of resistance training after MBS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023464928; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=464928. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/49513.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.018
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.008

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 head0.424
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207