Data Informing Governing Body Resistance-Training Guidelines Exhibit Sex Bias: An Audit-Based Review.

The objective of this review was to examine the ratio of female and male participants utilised in data informing consensus statements and position stands in the field of resistance training (RT). In order to achieve this objective, we conducted an 'audit' style review. We accessed three databases: SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE and Google Scholar utilising the following search terms: resistance or strength training AND consensus statements or position statements/stands. Eligibility criteria included consensus statements and position stands for RT in youth, adults and older adults. In this paper we have used the term 'female' to describe biological sex. Gender is a social construct and often describes roles and behaviours that society assigns to men or women. In this paper we have used the term 'women' to describe gender. Reference lists from each guideline were screened with the number of male and female participants extracted from each study. We also extracted data on the gender of the authors of the statements. We located 11 guidelines encompassing a total of 104,251,363 participants. Youth guidelines were comprised of 69% male participants. There were 287 studies that included both sexes, 205 male-only and 92 female-only studies. Adult guidelines were comprised of 70% male participants. There were 104 studies that included both sexes, 240 male-only and 44 female-only studies. Older adult guidelines were comprised of 54% female participants. There were 395 studies that included both sexes, 112 male-only and 83 female-only studies. Women authors comprised 13% of all authors of position stands and consensus statements. These results demonstrate an under-representation of females and women as both participants and as authors. It is imperative to ensure that data informing governing body guidelines and consensus statements are representative of the population they aim to inform. If this is not possible, guidelines should clearly state when their data and recommendations are based primarily upon one sex.

Lifestyle Interventions, Kidney Disease Progression, and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Rationale & Objective: Poor dietary patterns and low physical activity levels are important lifestyle-related factors that contribute to negative health outcomes in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Previous systematic reviews have not explicitly focused on these lifestyle factors, nor undertaken meta-analyses of any effects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of lifestyle interventions (such as diet, exercise, and other lifestyle-related interventions) on the risk factors for and progression of CKD and the quality of life. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Study Populations: Individuals aged 16 years or older with CKD stages 1 to 5 not requiring kidney replacement therapy. Selection Criteria for Studies: Randomized controlled trials of interventions. Data Extraction: Kidney function, albuminuria, creatinine, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body weight, glucose control, and quality of life. Analytical Approach: A random-effects meta-analysis with evidence certainty assessed using GRADE. Results: Seventy-eight records describing 68 studies were included. Twenty-four studies (35%) were dietary interventions, 23 (34%) exercise, 9 (13%) behavioral, 1 (2%) hydration, and 11 (16%) multiple component. Lifestyle interventions resulted in significant improvements in creatinine (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.43 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.11; P = 0.008); 24-hour albuminuria (WMD, -53 mg/24 h; 95% CI, -56 to -50; P < 0.001); systolic blood pressure (WMD, -4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.4; P < 0.001); diastolic blood pressure (WMD, -2.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.7 to -0.8; P = 0.003); and body weight (WMD, -1.1 kg; 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.1; P = 0.025). Lifestyle interventions did not result in significant changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (0.9 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, -0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.251). However, narrative synthesis indicated that lifestyle intervention resulted in improvements in the quality of life. Limitations: Certainty of the evidence was rated very low for most outcomes, primarily owing to the risk of bias and inconsistency. No meta-analysis was possible for quality-of-life outcomes because of variations in measurement tools. Conclusions: Lifestyle interventions seem to positively affect some risk factors for progression of CKD and quality of life.