力量训练对膝关节骨性关节炎患者膝关节本体感觉的影响:系统回顾与荟萃分析

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Medicine and Health Science Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.smhs.2023.10.005
Francisco Guede-Rojas , Alexis Benavides-Villanueva , Sergio Salgado-González , Cristhian Mendoza , Gonzalo Arias-Álvarez , Adolfo Soto-Martínez , Claudio Carvajal-Parodi
{"title":"力量训练对膝关节骨性关节炎患者膝关节本体感觉的影响:系统回顾与荟萃分析","authors":"Francisco Guede-Rojas ,&nbsp;Alexis Benavides-Villanueva ,&nbsp;Sergio Salgado-González ,&nbsp;Cristhian Mendoza ,&nbsp;Gonzalo Arias-Álvarez ,&nbsp;Adolfo Soto-Martínez ,&nbsp;Claudio Carvajal-Parodi","doi":"10.1016/j.smhs.2023.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Proprioception is significantly impaired in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), contributing to reduced functionality. Strength training (ST) is essential in KOA by improving muscle strength, although it may also be effective in improving proprioception. The purpose was to determine the effect of ST on knee proprioception in KOA patients. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, WOS, and PEDro were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (inception to March 2023). Comparisons for ST were physical exercise different from ST, non-exercise-based interventions, and no intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses were performed by comparison groups using the standardized mean difference (SMD) (Hedge's <em>g</em>) with random effects models, also considering subgroups by proprioception tests. Finally, six RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score was 6.3, and the highest proportion of biases corresponds to performance, selection, and detection. The meta-analysis indicated that only when compared with non-intervention, ST significantly improved knee proprioception for the joint position sense (JPS) (active + passive), JPS (passive), and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) subgroups (<em>g</em> ​= ​−1.33 [-2.33, −0.32], <em>g</em> = ​−2.29 [-2.82, −1.75] and <em>g</em> ​= ​−2.40 [-4.23, −0.58], respectively). However, in the knee JPS (active) subgroup, ST was not significant (<em>g</em> ​= ​−0.72 [-1.84, 0.40]). In conclusion, ST improves knee proprioception compared to non-intervention. However, due to the paucity of studies and diversity of interventions, more evidence is needed to support the effectiveness of <span>ST</span>. Future RCTs may address the limitations of this review to advance knowledge about proprioceptive responses to ST and contribute to clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33620,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762300077X/pdfft?md5=46a54efb0138d8c04acecdd20e485fff&pid=1-s2.0-S266633762300077X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of strength training on knee proprioception in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Guede-Rojas ,&nbsp;Alexis Benavides-Villanueva ,&nbsp;Sergio Salgado-González ,&nbsp;Cristhian Mendoza ,&nbsp;Gonzalo Arias-Álvarez ,&nbsp;Adolfo Soto-Martínez ,&nbsp;Claudio Carvajal-Parodi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.smhs.2023.10.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Proprioception is significantly impaired in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), contributing to reduced functionality. Strength training (ST) is essential in KOA by improving muscle strength, although it may also be effective in improving proprioception. The purpose was to determine the effect of ST on knee proprioception in KOA patients. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, WOS, and PEDro were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (inception to March 2023). Comparisons for ST were physical exercise different from ST, non-exercise-based interventions, and no intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses were performed by comparison groups using the standardized mean difference (SMD) (Hedge's <em>g</em>) with random effects models, also considering subgroups by proprioception tests. Finally, six RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score was 6.3, and the highest proportion of biases corresponds to performance, selection, and detection. The meta-analysis indicated that only when compared with non-intervention, ST significantly improved knee proprioception for the joint position sense (JPS) (active + passive), JPS (passive), and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) subgroups (<em>g</em> ​= ​−1.33 [-2.33, −0.32], <em>g</em> = ​−2.29 [-2.82, −1.75] and <em>g</em> ​= ​−2.40 [-4.23, −0.58], respectively). However, in the knee JPS (active) subgroup, ST was not significant (<em>g</em> ​= ​−0.72 [-1.84, 0.40]). In conclusion, ST improves knee proprioception compared to non-intervention. However, due to the paucity of studies and diversity of interventions, more evidence is needed to support the effectiveness of <span>ST</span>. Future RCTs may address the limitations of this review to advance knowledge about proprioceptive responses to ST and contribute to clinical practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine and Health Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762300077X/pdfft?md5=46a54efb0138d8c04acecdd20e485fff&pid=1-s2.0-S266633762300077X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine and Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762300077X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762300077X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

膝关节骨性关节炎(KOA)患者的本体感觉严重受损,导致功能减退。力量训练(ST)对改善膝关节骨性关节炎患者的肌肉力量至关重要,但它也可能有效改善本体感觉。本研究旨在确定力量训练对 KOA 患者膝关节本体感觉的影响。在 Pubmed、CINAHL、Scopus、WOS 和 PEDro 上检索了随机对照试验(RCT)(开始时间至 2023 年 3 月)。ST的比较对象包括不同于ST的体育锻炼、非体育锻炼干预和无干预。方法学质量采用PEDro量表进行评估,偏倚风险(RoB)采用Cochrane工具进行评估。使用标准化平均差(SMD)(Hedge's g)和随机效应模型按比较组进行 Meta 分析,同时还考虑了本体感觉测试的分组情况。最后,纳入了六项 RCT。PEDro 的平均得分为 6.3,偏差比例最高的是表现、选择和检测。荟萃分析表明,只有与非干预相比,ST 才能显著改善关节位置感(JPS)(主动 + 被动)、关节位置感(JPS)(被动)和被动运动检测阈值(TTDPM)亚组的膝关节本体感觉(g = -1.33 [-2.33, -0.32], g = -2.29 [-2.82, -1.75] 和 g = -2.40 [-4.23, -0.58])。然而,在膝关节 JPS(活动)亚组中,ST 的作用并不显著(g = -0.72 [-1.84, 0.40])。总之,与不干预相比,ST 可改善膝关节本体感觉。然而,由于研究较少且干预措施多样,还需要更多证据来证明 ST 的有效性。未来的研究性试验可能会解决本综述的局限性,从而增进对ST本体感觉反应的了解,并为临床实践做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effect of strength training on knee proprioception in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Proprioception is significantly impaired in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), contributing to reduced functionality. Strength training (ST) is essential in KOA by improving muscle strength, although it may also be effective in improving proprioception. The purpose was to determine the effect of ST on knee proprioception in KOA patients. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, WOS, and PEDro were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (inception to March 2023). Comparisons for ST were physical exercise different from ST, non-exercise-based interventions, and no intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses were performed by comparison groups using the standardized mean difference (SMD) (Hedge's g) with random effects models, also considering subgroups by proprioception tests. Finally, six RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score was 6.3, and the highest proportion of biases corresponds to performance, selection, and detection. The meta-analysis indicated that only when compared with non-intervention, ST significantly improved knee proprioception for the joint position sense (JPS) (active + passive), JPS (passive), and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) subgroups (g ​= ​−1.33 [-2.33, −0.32], g = ​−2.29 [-2.82, −1.75] and g ​= ​−2.40 [-4.23, −0.58], respectively). However, in the knee JPS (active) subgroup, ST was not significant (g ​= ​−0.72 [-1.84, 0.40]). In conclusion, ST improves knee proprioception compared to non-intervention. However, due to the paucity of studies and diversity of interventions, more evidence is needed to support the effectiveness of ST. Future RCTs may address the limitations of this review to advance knowledge about proprioceptive responses to ST and contribute to clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine and Health Science
Sports Medicine and Health Science Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular health in sedentary and athletes: Consensus, uncertainties, and ways for mitigation The effects of prolonged sitting behavior on resting-state brain functional connectivity in college students post-COVID-19 rehabilitation: A study based on fNIRS technology Effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system: A mendelian randomization study Exercise self-efficacy in older adults with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a latent profile analysis Failed Single-Leg Assessment of Postural Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries and Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
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