Comparison of objectively measured and estimated cardiorespiratory fitness to predict all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies representing 35 cohorts and 3.8 million observations.
Ben Singh,Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez,Bruno G G da Costa,José Castro-Piñero,Jean-Philippe Chaput,Magdalena Cuenca-García,Carol Maher,Nuria Marín-Jiménez,Ryan McGrath,Pablo Molina-Garcí,Jonathan Myers,Bethany Gower,Francisco B Ortega,Justin J Lang,Grant R Tomkinson
{"title":"Comparison of objectively measured and estimated cardiorespiratory fitness to predict all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies representing 35 cohorts and 3.8 million observations.","authors":"Ben Singh,Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez,Bruno G G da Costa,José Castro-Piñero,Jean-Philippe Chaput,Magdalena Cuenca-García,Carol Maher,Nuria Marín-Jiménez,Ryan McGrath,Pablo Molina-Garcí,Jonathan Myers,Bethany Gower,Francisco B Ortega,Justin J Lang,Grant R Tomkinson","doi":"10.1016/j.jshs.2024.100986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nCardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a powerful health marker recommended by the American Heart Association as a clinical vital sign. Comparing the predictive validity of objectively measured CRF (the \"gold standard\") and estimated CRF is clinically relevant because estimated CRF is more feasible. Our objective was to meta-analyze cohort studies to compare the associations of objectively measured, exercise-estimated, and non-exercise-estimated CRF with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in adults.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nSystematic searches were conducted in 9 databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) up to April 11, 2024. We included full-text refereed cohort studies published in English that quantified the association (using risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs)) of objectively measured, exercise-estimated, and non-exercise-estimated CRF with all-cause and CVD mortality in adults. CRF was expressed as metabolic equivalents (METs) of task. Pooled relative risks (RR) for all-cause and CVD mortality per 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min) higher level of CRF were quantified using random-effects models.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nForty-two studies representing 35 cohorts and 3,813,484 observations (81% male) (362,771 all-cause and 56,471 CVD deaths) were included. The pooled RRs for all-cause and CVD mortality per higher MET were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.88) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.80-0.87), respectively. For both all-cause and CVD mortality, there were no statistically significant differences in RR per higher MET between objectively measured (RR range: 0.86-0.90) and maximal exercise-estimated (RR range: 0.85-0.86), submaximal exercise-estimated (RR range: 0.91-0.94), and non-exercise-estimated CRF (RR range: 0.81-0.85).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nObjectively measured and estimated CRF showed similar dose-response associations for all-cause and CVD mortality in adults. Estimated CRF could provide a practical and robust alternative to objectively measured CRF for assessing mortality risk across diverse populations. Our findings underscore the health-related benefits of higher CRF and advocate for its integration into clinical practice to enhance risk stratification.","PeriodicalId":48897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","volume":"12 1","pages":"100986"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2024.100986","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a powerful health marker recommended by the American Heart Association as a clinical vital sign. Comparing the predictive validity of objectively measured CRF (the "gold standard") and estimated CRF is clinically relevant because estimated CRF is more feasible. Our objective was to meta-analyze cohort studies to compare the associations of objectively measured, exercise-estimated, and non-exercise-estimated CRF with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in adults.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in 9 databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) up to April 11, 2024. We included full-text refereed cohort studies published in English that quantified the association (using risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs)) of objectively measured, exercise-estimated, and non-exercise-estimated CRF with all-cause and CVD mortality in adults. CRF was expressed as metabolic equivalents (METs) of task. Pooled relative risks (RR) for all-cause and CVD mortality per 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min) higher level of CRF were quantified using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies representing 35 cohorts and 3,813,484 observations (81% male) (362,771 all-cause and 56,471 CVD deaths) were included. The pooled RRs for all-cause and CVD mortality per higher MET were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.88) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.80-0.87), respectively. For both all-cause and CVD mortality, there were no statistically significant differences in RR per higher MET between objectively measured (RR range: 0.86-0.90) and maximal exercise-estimated (RR range: 0.85-0.86), submaximal exercise-estimated (RR range: 0.91-0.94), and non-exercise-estimated CRF (RR range: 0.81-0.85).
CONCLUSION
Objectively measured and estimated CRF showed similar dose-response associations for all-cause and CVD mortality in adults. Estimated CRF could provide a practical and robust alternative to objectively measured CRF for assessing mortality risk across diverse populations. Our findings underscore the health-related benefits of higher CRF and advocate for its integration into clinical practice to enhance risk stratification.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport and Health Science (JSHS) is an international, multidisciplinary journal that aims to advance the fields of sport, exercise, physical activity, and health sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport, JSHS is dedicated to promoting original and impactful research, as well as topical reviews, editorials, opinions, and commentary papers.
With a focus on physical and mental health, injury and disease prevention, traditional Chinese exercise, and human performance, JSHS offers a platform for scholars and researchers to share their findings and contribute to the advancement of these fields. Our journal is peer-reviewed, ensuring that all published works meet the highest academic standards.
Supported by a carefully selected international editorial board, JSHS upholds impeccable integrity and provides an efficient publication platform. We invite submissions from scholars and researchers worldwide, and we are committed to disseminating insightful and influential research in the field of sport and health science.