4.5 Review

Objective physical activity levels in people with multiple sclerosis: Meta-analysis

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 1960-1969

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sms.13214

Keywords

exercise; meta-analysis; multiple sclerosis; physical activity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To quantify physical activity (PA) levels in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) using objective measurement and to establish using a meta-analytical approach if pwMS are less active than the general population. A systematic search of eight databases was conducted. Cohort and intervention studies which included an objective measure of PA were included. Objective PA outputs of steps per day and minutes of moderate-vigorous activity (MVPA) per day were extracted from the MS studies and the published NHANES dataset. Meta-analysis was used to compare the differences between the groups for these parametric outcomes. A general population sample from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States of America was used as a comparative group. The systematic search resulted in 32 papers (n=2 randomized control trials, n=30 cohort studies). A total of 3 762 pwMS were included. The sample was largely female (n=3 118, 82.8%) and ambulatory with/without use of an aid (n=31 studies). There were significant differences between the MS and the published NHANES comparative group with respect to 1) steps per day [mean difference: -3845 (-4120.17, -3569.83), P<.0001, n=10 studies] and 2) minutes of MVPA per day [mean difference: 9.00 (-12.5, -5.4), P<.0001, n=3 studies], indicating pwMS are less physically active than the NHANES sample. Results suggest that pwMS are less physically active than a general population across PA outputs of steps per day and minutes of MVPA per day. There is a need to increase PA levels among pwMS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available