Quality of the reporting of exercise interventions in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review

Uma Anand Raje, Tyler M. Saumur, Fernanda Pesce de Souza, S. Mathur, T. Janaudis-Ferreira
{"title":"Quality of the reporting of exercise interventions in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review","authors":"Uma Anand Raje, Tyler M. Saumur, Fernanda Pesce de Souza, S. Mathur, T. Janaudis-Ferreira","doi":"10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Exercise training programs must be described in detail to facilitate replication and implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of exercise training program description in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. \nMethods: We evaluated 21 RCTs reporting on exercise interventions in SOT recipients that were included in a recent systematic review/meta-analysis conducted by the research team. This previous review investigated the effects of exercise training (versus no training) in adult SOT recipients. Several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception to May 2019. Three reviewers independently rated the exercise programs for SOT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). \nResults: Mean score of the CERT was 6/19. None of the RCTs described all items of the CERT. Items of crucial importance, such as adherence, whether the exercise was done individually or in a group, whether there were home program or non-exercise components, and the type and number of adverse events, were either not mentioned or not described in detail.\nConclusion: RCTs in exercise in SOT recipients did not satisfactorily report their exercise protocols, which can lead to difficulties in replication by researchers and implementation by clinicians.","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/MJM.V19I1.219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background:Exercise training programs must be described in detail to facilitate replication and implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of exercise training program description in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Methods: We evaluated 21 RCTs reporting on exercise interventions in SOT recipients that were included in a recent systematic review/meta-analysis conducted by the research team. This previous review investigated the effects of exercise training (versus no training) in adult SOT recipients. Several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception to May 2019. Three reviewers independently rated the exercise programs for SOT using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Results: Mean score of the CERT was 6/19. None of the RCTs described all items of the CERT. Items of crucial importance, such as adherence, whether the exercise was done individually or in a group, whether there were home program or non-exercise components, and the type and number of adverse events, were either not mentioned or not described in detail. Conclusion: RCTs in exercise in SOT recipients did not satisfactorily report their exercise protocols, which can lead to difficulties in replication by researchers and implementation by clinicians.
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
实体器官移植受者运动干预报告的质量:系统回顾
背景:必须详细描述运动训练计划,以便于复制和实施。本研究旨在评估涉及实体器官移植(SOT)接受者的随机对照试验(RCT)中运动训练项目描述的质量。方法:我们评估了21项报告SOT受试者运动干预的随机对照试验,这些试验包括在研究团队最近进行的系统综述/荟萃分析中。这篇先前的综述调查了运动训练(与不训练相比)对成年SOT接受者的影响。从开始到2019年5月,检索了几个数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册)。三名评审员使用演习报告模板(CERT)对SOT的演习计划进行了独立评级。结果:CERT的平均得分为6/19。没有一项随机对照试验描述了CERT的所有项目。至关重要的项目,如依从性、锻炼是单独还是集体进行、是否有家庭计划或非锻炼组成部分,以及不良事件的类型和数量,要么没有提及,要么没有详细描述。结论:SOT受试者在运动中的随机对照试验没有令人满意地报告他们的运动方案,这可能导致研究人员难以复制和临床医生难以实施。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Healthy Brains Healthy Lives 2024 Symposium Ontario Student Medical Education Research Conference (OSMERC) 2024 Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a call for change in reporting practices Advance Care Directives: A Herzl Clinic Quality Improvement Project on Patients' perspectives Children’s health-related experiences in India: A scoping review
×
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:481959085
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