4.3 Article

Using step counters to promote physical activity and exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1753466618787386

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; exercise capacity; physical activity; step counter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although step counters are popularly employed for physical rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, their effectiveness is inconsistent and even questioned. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether step counter use increases physical activity or improves exercise capacity in COPD patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of step counter use in increasing physical activity or in improving exercise capacity. Data were aggregated using a random-effects model to get the overall effect sizes [standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI)], and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: A total of 15 trials enrolling 1316 patients with moderate to severe COPD were included. Step counter use increased physical activity compared with controls (SMD = 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-0.84), which is equal to a magnitude of 1026 steps/day in daily steps. It also enhanced exercise capacity with an effect size of 0.30 (95% CI 0.16-0.45), approximating to a magnitude of 11.6 m in the 6-min walking distance. Step counter use could augment physical activity (SMD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.19-1.08) and exercise capacity (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01-0.62) for patients receiving pulmonary rehabilitation. Yet it cannot enhance physical activity or exercise capacity in patients with severe COPD or among studies with intervention durations 6 months (both p > 0.50). Conclusions: Step counter use increases physical activity and improves exercise capacity in COPD patients, at least in the short term, which supports the notion of recommending step counter use in COPD management.

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