MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99598761 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001796

Aerobic exercise interventions for adults living with HIV/AIDS

2002· review· en· W99598761 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Nixon, Kimberly O’Brien, Richard H. Glazier, AM Tynan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINEGerontologyPopulationAerobic exerciseMedical prescriptionRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The profile of HIV infection is constantly changing. Although once viewed as an illness progressing to death, HIV infection now presents as a chronic infection characterized by unpredictable cycles of wellness and illness. Thus, the needs of this population have increasingly included management of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Exercise is a key management strategy employed by rehabilitation professionals to address these issues. Exercise has been shown to improve strength, cardiovascular function, and psychological status in seronegative populations (see Eds., Bouchard, C., Shephard, R.J., & Stephens, T. (1993). Physical Activity, Fitness, and Health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.) But what are the effects of exercise for people living with HIV infection? If the risks and benefits of exercise for people living with HIV infection are better understood, appropriate exercise prescription may be practiced by health care providers. Improved exercise prescription may enhance the effectiveness of HIV management, thus improving overall outcomes for people living with HIV infection. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of aerobic exercise interventions on cardiopulmonary, immunologic and psychological parameters in adults living with HIV infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIENCE CITATION INDEX, AIDSLINE CINAHL, HEALTHSTAR, PSYCHLIT, SOCIOFILE, SCI, SSCI, ERIC, DIA and abstracts from international AIDS meetings, ICAAC, and other major meetings. Reference lists from pertinent articles and books and personal contact with authors were also used, as were Collaborative Review Group databases and results of hand searching of targeted journals. All languages were included. Searches covered the period from 1980 to July 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: For inclusion, studies had to be randomized control trials involving HIV+ adults 18 years of age or older and had to include at least one group randomized to receive aerobic exercise performed at least three times/week for at least four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from the reports onto specifically designed data collection forms by at least two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies satisfied the eligibility criteria. The main results indicated that performing constant or interval aerobic exercise for at least 20 minutes, at least three times per week for four weeks may lead to increased CD4 count, improved cardiopulmonary fitness, and improved psychological status. These findings are limited to those who continued to exercise and for whom there was adequate follow-up data. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise appears to be safe and may be beneficial for adults living with HIV/AIDS. These findings are limited by the small sample sizes and large drop-out rates of the included studies. Further research is required to determine the optimal parameters of aerobic exercise and stage of disease in which aerobic exercise may be most beneficial for adults living with HIV infection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
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

Citations52
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207