4.3 Review

Effects of walking on body composition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000627

关键词

Body composition; Body mass index; Body weight; Menopause; Obesity; Walk

资金

  1. Scientific and Technologic Development Programme of Shandong Province [2012YD18117]
  2. Scientific Research Development Plan for Universities in Shandong Province [J11LF97]
  3. Science and Technology Project of Binzhou Medical University [BY2012KJ19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of walking on body weight, body mass index (BMI), and body fat percentage in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Methods: Two authors identified randomized controlled trials of interventions at least 4 weeks in duration that included at least one group with walking as the only treatment and a no-exercise control group. Participants were inactive at baseline. Weighted mean differences were calculated using the fixed-effects and random-effects models. Heterogeneity among trials was examined using the Q statistic and I-2 methods. Potential publication bias was assessed through funnel plot inspection. Results: Eight studies met the study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis results showed statistically significant reductions in mean differences for BMI (-0.33 kg/m(2), 95% CI -0.62 to -0.04 kg/m(2)), body weight (-1.14 kg, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.42 kg), and body fat percentage (-2.36%, 95% CI -3.21% to -1.52%). The results were consistent in showing effects of walking on BMI (I-2 = 11%), body weight (I-2 = 20%), and body fat percentage (I-2 = 0%). Funnel plots showed asymmetry for body composition. Conclusions: Walking interventions improved body composition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, which underscores the central role of walking as a physical activity for health promotion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据