ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#Sleep disorders are common in older adults and have a negative influence on their physical and mental health. General aerobic exercises (GAEs) have long been used in the treatment of sleep disorders as a non-pharmacological measure. However, there is no consensus on the efficacy of traditional Chinese exercises (TCEs) for treating sleep disorders in older adults and the difference between TCEs and GAEs.@*OBJECTIVE@#This study assessed the effects of TCEs and GAEs on the sleep quality of older adults and the differences between these two interventions.@*SEARCH STRATEGY@#PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Journal Database and Wanfang Data were searched from their inception to August 2020.@*INCLUSION CRITERIA@#Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of TCEs and GAEs on older adults with sleep disorders were included.@*DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS@#Data were extracted by two researchers working independently. The risk bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to estimate sleep quality. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the total PSQI score of the exercise intervention as the primary outcome, and the scores of subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbance, use of sleep medication and daytime dysfunction were assessed as secondary outcomes. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the contribution of covariables to heterogeneity.@*RESULTS@#A total of 22 RCTs (including 1747 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that TCEs (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.82, -1.46], P < 0.001; heterogeneity: P < 0.001, I@*CONCLUSION@#Current evidence shows that both TCEs and GAEs, as complementary and non-pharmacological approaches, help to improve the sleep quality in older adults with potentially clinical implications; however, there was not enough evidence to conclude the difference between them. More rigorous and high-quality RCTs are needed to arrive at reliable conclusions.
Subject(s)
Aged , Female , Humans , China , Exercise , Exercise Therapy , Sleep Wake Disorders/therapy , Tai JiABSTRACT
Objective: To analyze the prognostic value of myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19. Method: Confirmed cases of COVID-19 patients admitted from January 31st to February 5th at isolation ward of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University were divided into non-survival group （33 cases）and survival group (169 cases)according to the clinical outcomes 5 weeks after admission. Data including demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory results were obtained. Cardiac injury was defined as serum concentration of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) above 0.04 μg/L. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to analyze the prognostic value of myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to plotted survival curve and analyze the impact of myocardial injury on the survival outcome of COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 202 patients were included, the age was 63 (51, 70) years old, 88 (43.6%) of them were male, 85 (42.1%) of them had comorbidities, 125 (61.9%) of them were severely to critically ill. Till March 11, 33 patients died, all of them were critically ill patients. The age, proportion of males, comorbidities, respire rate, serum levels of hs-cTnI and incidence of heart failure in the non-survival group were significantly higher than those in the survival group (all P<0.05). The hospitalization time of non-survival group was significantly shorter than that of survival group (6(4, 9) vs. 32(23, 36), P<0.001). Myocardial injury was an important prognostic factor of COVID-19 (HR=5.382, 95%CI 2.404-12.050, P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the presence of myocardial injury was significantly associated with the reduced survival rate among COVID-19 patients (P<0.001). Conclusion: Myocardial injury is an important prognostic factor of COVID-19, COVID-19 patients with myocardial injury face a significantly higher risk of death.