Pulmonary rehabilitation for acute exacerbations of COPD: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review summarized the evidence on the effects (benefits and harms) of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation to either active interventions or usual care regardless of setting. In March 2022, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Web of Sciences, and trial registries. Record screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: This systematic review included 18 studies (n = 1465), involving a combination of mixed settings (8 studies), inpatient settings (8 studies), and outpatient settings (2 studies). The studies were at high risk of performance, detection, and reporting biases. Compared to usual care, pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves AECOPD-related hospital readmissions (relative risk 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence) and cardiovascular submaximal capacity (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99; moderate certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation may be beneficial on re-exacerbations, dyspnoea, and impact of disease. The evidence regarding the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and mortality is very uncertain (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that pulmonary rehabilitation may be an effective treatment option for individuals with AECOPD, irrespective of setting. Our certainty in this evidence base was limited due to small studies, heterogeneous rehabilitation programs, numerous methodological weaknesses, and a poor reporting of findings that were inconsistent with each other. Trialists should adhere to the latest reporting standards to strengthen this body of evidence. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/amgbz/).

Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations. METHODS: We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE-II), and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses. RESULTS: We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last 5 years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (P < 0.05). Quality scores did not differ between the use of the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-EtD framework (17 guidelines) or another EtD framework (13 guidelines) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.

Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I2 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I2 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I2 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

The Effects of Resistance Training on Blood Pressure in Preadolescents and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the current evidence for the effects of resistance training (RT) on blood pressure (BP) as the main outcome and body mass index (BMI) in children and adolescents. Two authors systematically searched the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science Core Collection and EMBASE electronic databases. Inclusion criteria were: (1) children and adolescents (aged 8 to 18 years); (2) intervention studies including RT and (3) outcome measures of BP and BMI. The selected studies were analyzed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. Eight articles met inclusion criteria totaling 571 participants. The mean age ranged from 9.3 to 15.9 years and the mean BMI of 29.34 (7.24) kg/m2). Meta-analysis indicated that RT reduced BMI significantly (mean difference (MD): -0.43 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.82, -0.03), P = 0.03; I2 = 5%) and a non-significant decrease in systolic BP (SBP) (MD: -1.09 mmHg (95% CI: -3.24, 1.07), P = 0.32; I2 = 67%) and diastolic BP (DBP) (MD: -0.93 mmHg (95% CI: -2.05, 0.19), P = 0.10; I2 = 37%). Limited evidence suggests that RT has no adverse effects on BP and may positively affect BP in youths. More high-quality studies are needed to clarify the association between RT and BP in light of body composition changes throughout childhood and adolescence.