Effect of interval compared to continuous exercise training on physiological responses in patients with chronic respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (28th September 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Effect of interval compared to continuous exercise training on physiological responses in patients with chronic respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (28th September 2021)
- Main Title:
- Effect of interval compared to continuous exercise training on physiological responses in patients with chronic respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors:
- Alexiou, Charikleia
Ward, Lesley
Hume, Emily
Armstrong, Matthew
Wilkinson, Mick
Vogiatzis, Ioannis - Abstract:
- Background: Current evidence suggests that interval exercise training (IET) and continuous exercise training (CET) produce comparable benefits in exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and symptoms in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the effects of these modalities have only been reviewed in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of IET versus CET on exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and exertional symptoms in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs).Methods: PubMed, CINHAL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Nursing and Allied health were searched for randomised controlled trials from inception to September 2020. Eligible studies included the comparison between IET and CET, reporting measures of exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and symptoms in individuals with CRDs.Results: Thirteen randomised control trials (530 patients with CRDs) with fair to good quality on the PEDro scale were included. Eleven studies involved n = 446 patients with COPD, one involved n = 24 patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and one n = 60 lung transplantation (LT) candidates. IET resulted in greater improvements in peak work rate (WRpeak ) (2.40 W, 95% CI: 0.83 to 3.97 W; p = 0.003) and lower exercise-induced dyspnoea (−0.47, 95% CI: −0.86 to 0.09; p = 0.02) compared to CET; however, these improvements did not exceed the minimal important difference for these outcomes.Background: Current evidence suggests that interval exercise training (IET) and continuous exercise training (CET) produce comparable benefits in exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and symptoms in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the effects of these modalities have only been reviewed in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of IET versus CET on exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and exertional symptoms in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs).Methods: PubMed, CINHAL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Nursing and Allied health were searched for randomised controlled trials from inception to September 2020. Eligible studies included the comparison between IET and CET, reporting measures of exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness and symptoms in individuals with CRDs.Results: Thirteen randomised control trials (530 patients with CRDs) with fair to good quality on the PEDro scale were included. Eleven studies involved n = 446 patients with COPD, one involved n = 24 patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and one n = 60 lung transplantation (LT) candidates. IET resulted in greater improvements in peak work rate (WRpeak ) (2.40 W, 95% CI: 0.83 to 3.97 W; p = 0.003) and lower exercise-induced dyspnoea (−0.47, 95% CI: −0.86 to 0.09; p = 0.02) compared to CET; however, these improvements did not exceed the minimal important difference for these outcomes. No significant differences in peak values for oxygen uptake (VO2peak ), heart rate (HRpeak ), minute ventilation (VEpeak ), lactate threshold (LAT) and leg discomfort were found between the interventions.Conclusions: IET is superior to CET in improving exercise capacity and exercise-induced dyspnoea sensations in patients with CRDs; however, the extent of the clinical benefit is not considered clinically meaningful. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Chronic respiratory disease. Volume 18(2021)
- Journal:
- Chronic respiratory disease
- Issue:
- Volume 18(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 18, Issue 2021 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 18
- Issue:
- 2021
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0018-2021-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2021-09-28
- Subjects:
- exercise -- respiratory disease -- systematic review
Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals
616.2005 - Journal URLs:
- http://crd.sagepub.com/ ↗
http://www.uk.sagepub.com/home.nav ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1177/14799731211041506 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1479-9723
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 20112.xml