Therapeutic validity and effectiveness of supervised physical exercise training on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of supervised physical exercise training on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taken into consideration indices such as therapeutic validity of interventions, methodological quality of studies, and exercise volume. DATA RESOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro databases were searched from inception until 17 July 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of supervised exercise training vs. usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The references of included studies and review articles were hand searched for additional references and key authors of included trials were crosschecked in PubMed for any missed references. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed therapeutic validity of exercise training and methodological quality of included studies. Overall effects were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies involving 756 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included. Significant differences in maximal exercise capacity (standardized mean difference 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74) and endurance exercise capacity (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) in favor of physical exercise training were found. The volume of physical exercise per week, the total volume of physical exercise, or their associations did not significantly influence the effect of training. CONCLUSION: Effects of supervised physical exercise was not significantly altered by therapeutic validity. A combination of aerobic exercise and strength training was found to be more effective than strength training or endurance training alone in increasing the 6-minute walking distance.

Measuring treatment outcome in children with developmental coordination disorder; responsiveness of six outcome measures.

PURPOSE: Although measuring outcome of rehabilitation in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder is considered important no consensus exists on which instruments to use. An important attribute of a measurement instrument would be that it is sensitive to clinical changes. The aim of this prospective, observational study was therefore to investigate the responsiveness of six potentially suitable instruments. METHODS: Forty-one children (34 boys, median age 7.8 years, Inter Quartile Range: 7.2-9.2) receiving multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment for Developmental Coordination Disorder were included (mean treatment time: 32.8 h, Standard Deviation 7.3). The following instruments were applied before and after rehabilitation: Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 (MABC-2), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Systematic detection writing problems (SOS-2-NL), DCD-daily, Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and TNO-AZL children's Quality of Life questionnaire (TACQOL)). Change-scores (paired t-test/Wilcoxon-test) and responsiveness (Effect-sizes and Standardized-Response-Means) were calculated. RESULTS: Significant differences over time were found for the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, DCDdaily and Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 (p < 0.05). The responsiveness of these instruments was moderate-high (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure-performance Effect-Size:1.70/Standardized-Response-Mean:1.81, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure-satisfaction Effect-Size:1.65/Standardized-Response-Mean 1.53; DCDdaily-total-score Effect-Size:0.40/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.62, DCDdaily-Quality-score Effect-Size:0.74/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.89, DCDdaily-time-score Effect-Size:0.21/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.43; MABC-2-total-score Effect-Size:0.42/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.43, MABC-2-Ball-skills-score Effect-Size:0.33/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.36). Systematic detection of writing problems (SOS-2-NL), Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and TNO-AZL children's Quality of Life questionnaire (TACQOL) were not responsive to change. CONCLUSION: Although the Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 test is the most widely used instrument when measuring rehabilitation outcome in Developmental Coordination Disorder, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and DCDdaily seem to be more responsive and constitute a valuable addition.Implications for rehabilitationCurrently, there is no consensus on the preferred measurement instruments to evaluate the outcomes of rehabilitation in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder.The responsiveness of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was found to be large, of the DCDdaily moderate to large, and of the Movement-Assessment-Battery-Children-2 (MABC-2) small, whereas the systematic detection of writing problems (SOS-2-NL; Systematisch Opsporing Schrijfproblemen-2-NL), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) and TNO-AZL Questionnaire for Children's Health-Related Quality of Life (TACQOL) were not responsive to change.Although the Movement-Assessment-Battery-Children-2 (MABC-2) is commonly used in Developmental Coordination Disorder rehabilitation, applying the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and DCDdaily should be considered, as these instruments were more sensitive to clinical changes.

Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival outcomes of patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Sweden, 1996-2010. PARTICIPANTS: 34,515 men primarily treated for prostate cancer with surgery (n=21,533) or radiotherapy (n=12,982). Patients were categorised by risk group (low, intermediate, high, and metastatic), age, and Charlson comorbidity score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative incidence of mortality from prostate cancer and other causes. Competing risks regression hazard ratios for radiotherapy versus surgery were computed without adjustment and after propensity score and traditional (multivariable) adjustments, as well as after propensity score matching. Several sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Prostate cancer mortality became a larger proportion of overall mortality as risk group increased for both the surgery and the radiotherapy cohorts. Among patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio for prostate cancer mortality favoured surgery (1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.08, for radiotherapy v prostatectomy), whereas there was no discernible difference in treatment effect among men with metastatic disease. Subgroup analyses indicated more clear benefits of surgery among younger and fitter men with intermediate and high risk disease. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study with follow-up to 15 years suggests that for most men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, surgery leads to better survival than does radiotherapy. Younger men and those with less comorbidity who have intermediate or high risk localised prostate cancer might have a greater benefit from surgery.