丹麦哥本哈根大学Rasmus Tolstrup Larsen团队对成人运动监测的有效性进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。这一研究成果于2022年1月26日发表在《英国医学杂志》上。
为了评估以运动监测（PAM）为基础的干预在成人中的有效性，并探讨异质性的原因，研究组在MEDLINE、EMABASE、SPLTICDUS、CINHAL和Cochrane中央对照登记中心（CENTRAL）等电子数据库检索截至2021年6月4日的文献，筛选出比较成年人从PAMs获得反馈的干预和没有提供反馈的对照干预的随机对照试验。
结果测量类型、发表日期或文献语言没有限制。两名评审员独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险，随机效应荟萃分析用于综合结果。证据的确定性通过建议分级评估和评价（GRADE）方法进行评定。研究组感兴趣的三个主要结果是运动、中度至剧烈运动和久坐时间。
121项随机对照试验共涉及141项研究比较，包括16743名参与者。基于PAM的干预措施对运动有中度影响，相当于每天1235步；对中度到剧烈的运动有轻微影响，相当于每周48.5分钟；对久坐时间有微不足道的影响，相当于每天9.9分钟。所有结果都有利于PAM干预。
研究结果表明，以PAM为基础的干预措施对运动影响的证据确定性较低，而对中度至剧烈运动和久坐时间的证据确定性居中。基于PAM的干预措施安全有效地增加了运动和中等至剧烈的运动。PAM对运动和中等至剧烈运动的影响已得到充分证实，但由于发表偏倚，可能被高估。
附：英文原文
Title: Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
Author: Rasmus Tolstrup Larsen, Vibeke Wagner, Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Camilla Keller, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Henning Langberg, Jan Christensen
Issue&Volume: 2022/01/26
Abstract:
Objective To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Study selection The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.
Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Main outcome measures The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.
Results 121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (0.12, 0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.
Conclusions The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068047
Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068047
BMJ-British Medical Journal:《英国医学杂志》，创刊于1840年。隶属于BMJ出版集团，最新IF：93.333
官方网址：http://www.bmj.com/
投稿链接：https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
本期文章：《英国医学杂志》：Online/在线发表
