Suppr超能文献

全身振动对老年人肌肉力量指标的影响:关于身体能力水平作用的系统评价和荟萃分析

Effects of whole-body vibration on proxies of muscle strength in old adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of physical capacity level.

作者信息

Rogan Slavko, de Bruin Eling D, Radlinger Lorenz, Joehr Christine, Wyss Christa, Stuck Neil-Jerome, Bruelhart Yvonne, de Bie Rob A, Hilfiker Roger

机构信息

Bern University of Applied Sciences, Discipline Physiotherapy, Bern, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2015 Dec 8;12:12. doi: 10.1186/s11556-015-0158-3. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dynapenia (age-associated loss of muscle strength not caused by neurologic or muscular diseases) and functional limitations (e.g. climbing stairs, chair rising) are important problems in elderly persons. Whole body vibration, used as an adjunct to classical resistance training or even as a stand-alone alternative, might help to reduce these problems. Its value might be highest in elderly persons with very low function, where whole body vibration can be used as a skilling up training until more conventional exercise types are possible. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the current evidence for whole-body vibration interventions on isometric maximum voluntary contraction, dynamic strength, power, rate of force development and functional strength in elderly categorised in different subgroups based on function levels.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was carried out in February 2014 and repeated in February 2015 at PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and CINAHL electronic databases. The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the World Health Organization was also searched. Randomized controlled trials measuring isometric maximum voluntary contraction, dynamic strength, power, rate of force development and functional strength in studies using WBV intervention in 65 years or older elderly individuals were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing Risk of Bias. Studies were classified based on the level of physical capacitiy of the participants as "Go-Go", "Slow-Go" or "No-Go". Data were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-eigth articles of moderate methodological quality were included. The vibration modes for sinusoidal vertical whole-body vibration was between 25 and 40 Hz, the amplitude varied from 2 to 4 mm. Sinusoidal side-alternating -whole-body vibration revealed frequencies from 2.5 to 35 Hz with amplitudes ranging from 0.05 to 12 mm. Stochastic resonance whole-body vibration used frequencies between 3 and 6 Hz. Effect sizes in Go-Go were moderate after vertical sinusoidal Whole-body vibration compared to non-training control groups for isometric maximum voluntary contraction with effect size 0.48 (95 % CI 0.33 to 0.63) and for Dynamic Strength with effect size 0.47 (95 % CI 0.06 to 0.88). Side-alternating sinusoidal whole body vibration showed moderate effect sizes with 0.69 (95 % CI 0.32 to 1.06) for isometric maximum voluntary contraction, 0.50 (95 % CI 0.07 to 0.92) for power, 0.40 (95 % CI 0.16 to 0.64) for Rate of Force Development and 0.42 (95 % CI 0.13 to 0.71) for Functional Strength compared to non-exercise control. The analysis for Slow-Go showed for stochastic resonance whole-body vibration and Functional Strength an effect size of 0.97 (95 % CI -0.07 to 2.00) compared to non-exercise control in one study. No-Go showed for stochastic resonance whole-body vibration a moderate effect size with 0.50 (95 % CI -0.32 to 1.33) for Functional Strength compared to non-exercise control.

CONCLUSIONS

Whole-body vibration shows beneficial effects, mainly in the No-Go group elderly compared to non-training control and conventional strength training groups. The results suggest that WBV can be used as a skilling-up exercise in participants not able to perform standard exercises. Further studies with the various types of WBV in various sub-populations of elderly persons are needed to determine the most effective vibration modes.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42013006489.

摘要

背景

肌无力(与年龄相关的肌肉力量丧失,并非由神经或肌肉疾病引起)和功能受限(如爬楼梯、从椅子上起身)是老年人面临的重要问题。全身振动作为传统阻力训练的辅助手段,甚至作为独立的替代方法,可能有助于减少这些问题。在功能极低的老年人中,其价值可能最高,在这种情况下,全身振动可作为一种技能提升训练,直到能够进行更传统的运动类型。本系统评价和荟萃分析总结了目前关于全身振动干预对不同功能水平亚组老年人等长最大自主收缩、动态力量、功率、力量发展速率和功能力量影响的证据。

方法

2014年2月进行了广泛的文献检索,并于2015年2月在PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、物理治疗证据数据库和CINAHL电子数据库中重复检索。还检索了世界卫生组织的国际临床试验注册平台。纳入了在65岁及以上老年人中使用全身振动干预的研究中测量等长最大自主收缩、动态力量、功率、力量发展速率和功能力量的随机对照试验。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入研究的方法学质量。根据参与者的身体能力水平将研究分为“能行”、“慢行”或“不行”。数据采用随机效应模型进行合并。

结果

纳入了38篇方法学质量中等的文章。正弦垂直全身振动的振动模式为25至40赫兹,振幅在2至4毫米之间。正弦侧交替全身振动的频率为2.5至35赫兹,振幅范围为0.05至12毫米。随机共振全身振动使用的频率为3至6赫兹。与非训练对照组相比,“能行”组在垂直正弦全身振动后,等长最大自主收缩的效应大小为中等,效应大小为0.48(95%CI 0.33至0.63),动态力量的效应大小为0.47(95%CI 0.06至0.88)。侧交替正弦全身振动显示出中等效应大小,等长最大自主收缩为0.69(95%CI 0.32至1.06),功率为0.50(95%CI 0.07至0.92),力量发展速率为0.40(95%CI 0.16至0.64),功能力量为0.42(95%CI 0.13至0.71),与非运动对照组相比。对“慢行”组的分析显示,在一项研究中,与非运动对照组相比,随机共振全身振动和功能力量的效应大小为0.97(95%CI -0.07至2.00)。“不行”组中,与非运动对照组相比,随机共振全身振动的功能力量效应大小为中等,为0.50(95%CI -0.32至1.33)。

结论

与非训练对照组和传统力量训练组相比,全身振动显示出有益效果,主要体现在“不行”组老年人中。结果表明,全身振动可作为无法进行标准运动的参与者的技能提升运动。需要对不同亚组老年人进行各种类型全身振动的进一步研究,以确定最有效的振动模式。

注册号

CRD42013006489。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/606d/4748331/09d45bcd3875/11556_2015_158_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验