Effect of exercise training on cardiac autonomic function in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.9 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1186/s13643-025-02772-9
Sohini Raje, G Arun Maiya, Padmakumar R, Mukund A Prabhu, Krishnananda Nayak, Shivashankara Kn, B A Shastry, Megha Nataraj
{"title":"Effect of exercise training on cardiac autonomic function in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sohini Raje, G Arun Maiya, Padmakumar R, Mukund A Prabhu, Krishnananda Nayak, Shivashankara Kn, B A Shastry, Megha Nataraj","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02772-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is an underdiagnosed complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiac autonomic reflex tests (CARTs) are the gold standard; they are non-invasive and clinically feasible for screening CAN. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to examine exercise's effect on cardiac autonomic function using CARTs in T2DM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Checklist (PRISMA) was used. Electronic databases were systematically used to retrieve relevant studies after title and abstract screening. Studies utilizing exercise training with cardiac autonomic function (CARTs) outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1, using the random effects model, and appropriate tests for heterogeneity. The Cohrane ROB-2 tool was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the ROBINS-I tool for non-RCT for risk of bias assessment were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies were included (two for meta-analysis), considering the outcome of the E:I ratio, 30:15 ratio, and Valsalva ratio. The studies did not show any influence on the E:I and 30:15 ratio in the pooled analysis with a low risk of ineffectiveness for the exercise intervention. Exercise training significantly affected the Valsalva ratio. A different type of exercise intervention was utilized in all three studies. There was a low to moderate certainty for the evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that further robust and high-quality randomized controlled trials utilizing cardiac autonomic reflex tests (which have clinical and physiological relevance) in type 2 diabetes mellitus are required for drawing conclusions.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023445561.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02772-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is an underdiagnosed complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiac autonomic reflex tests (CARTs) are the gold standard; they are non-invasive and clinically feasible for screening CAN. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to examine exercise's effect on cardiac autonomic function using CARTs in T2DM.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Checklist (PRISMA) was used. Electronic databases were systematically used to retrieve relevant studies after title and abstract screening. Studies utilizing exercise training with cardiac autonomic function (CARTs) outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1, using the random effects model, and appropriate tests for heterogeneity. The Cohrane ROB-2 tool was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the ROBINS-I tool for non-RCT for risk of bias assessment were used.

Results: Three studies were included (two for meta-analysis), considering the outcome of the E:I ratio, 30:15 ratio, and Valsalva ratio. The studies did not show any influence on the E:I and 30:15 ratio in the pooled analysis with a low risk of ineffectiveness for the exercise intervention. Exercise training significantly affected the Valsalva ratio. A different type of exercise intervention was utilized in all three studies. There was a low to moderate certainty for the evidence.

Conclusion: The results indicate that further robust and high-quality randomized controlled trials utilizing cardiac autonomic reflex tests (which have clinical and physiological relevance) in type 2 diabetes mellitus are required for drawing conclusions.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023445561.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运动训练对 2 型糖尿病患者心脏自主神经功能的影响:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:心脏自主神经病变(CAN)是2型糖尿病(T2DM)的一种未被确诊的并发症,与心血管疾病的发病率和死亡率相关。心脏自主反射试验(cart)是金标准;它们是非侵入性的,在临床上用于筛查CAN是可行的。本荟萃分析的目的是利用cart检查运动对T2DM患者心脏自主神经功能的影响。方法:采用系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目清单(PRISMA)。通过题目和摘要筛选,系统地使用电子数据库检索相关研究。在2型糖尿病患者中使用运动训练与心脏自主神经功能(cart)结果的研究被纳入。meta分析采用RevMan 5.4.1软件,采用随机效应模型,并进行相应的异质性检验。随机对照试验(rct)使用Cohrane rob2工具,非随机对照试验(rct)使用robins - 1工具进行偏倚风险评估。结果:纳入了3项研究(2项用于荟萃分析),考虑了E:I比率、30:15比率和Valsalva比率的结果。在合并分析中,这些研究没有显示出对E:I和30:15比率有任何影响,运动干预无效的风险很低。运动训练显著影响Valsalva比率。在所有三项研究中都采用了不同类型的运动干预。证据的确定性为低到中等。结论:研究结果表明,在2型糖尿病患者中使用心脏自主神经反射试验(具有临床和生理相关性)的进一步可靠和高质量的随机对照试验需要得出结论。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42023445561。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Barriers and facilitators of oral health care utilization among pregnant women: a mixed-methods systematic review. Pemafibrate for hypertriglyceridemia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety outcomes. Prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition among older adults with sarcopenia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis. Evaluating health service delivery frameworks for assessing community health worker performance in LMICs: a mixed-method systematic review protocol. Causal inference in real-world dementia research: a systematic review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1