4.4 Article

Effect of Aerobic Exercise Training on Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Volume 67, Issue 8, Pages 1054-1062

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.22561

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fatigue is not being well-managed currently, and evidence of effective interventions is limited. Aerobic exercise may provide benefit to treat fatigue in RA. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to analyze the effect of aerobic land-based exercise on fatigue in RA. Methods. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registers to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a supervised land-based aerobic exercise program performed with an intensity between 50% and 90% of maximal heart rate, of at least 15 minutes' duration, performed at least 2 times a week, and lasting for a time period of at least 4 consecutive weeks. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. A meta-analysis of fatigue outcomes was performed by calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model. Results. Five RCTs were included. None of the trials selected patients with RA for having fatigue. Risk of bias was low in 3 RCTs and unclear in 2. Land-based aerobic exercise programs had a positive effect on fatigue in RA compared to no exercise at 12 weeks, SMD -0.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.55, -0.06). At 24 weeks, the effect of aerobic land-based exercise was smaller and not statistically significant: SMD -0.15 (95% CI -0.33, 0.02). Conclusion. There is evidence with low risk of bias that an aerobic exercise program is effective in reducing fatigue among patients with RA, especially in the short term; however, effects are small. To substantiate the evidence, RCTs should be performed in patients with RA selected for having fatigue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available