Suppr超能文献

血流限制训练对膝关节骨关节炎患者的疗效与安全性:一项系统评价和Meta分析

Efficacy and Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Wang Hao-Nan, Chen Yan, Cheng Lin, Cai Yi-Hui, Li Wei, Ni Guo-Xin

机构信息

Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2022 Jan;74(1):89-98. doi: 10.1002/acr.24787. Epub 2021 Dec 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

Seven electronic databases were searched to identify trials comparing BFRT and conventional resistance training in a population with knee OA. Studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to compare outcome measures of the groups. The methodologic quality of selected studies and the quality of evidence were evaluated for included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with very low to moderate risk of bias. The pooled results showed no significant difference between BFRT and conventional resistance training for knee OA, including pain (SMD -0.04 [95% CI -0.31, 0.24], P = 0.79), physical function performance (SMD 0.12 [95% CI -0.55, 0.78], P = 0.73), self-reported function (SMD 0.14 [95% CI -0.24, 0.52], P = 0.48), and adverse events (RR 0.45 [95% CI 0.20, 1.01], P = 0.05). In subgroup analysis, BFRT had a lower incidence of adverse events when compared with high-load resistance training (HLRT).

CONCLUSION

Data from pooled studies showed that BFRT may not have greater efficacy for treating patients with knee OA, and it is less likely to have a higher risk of adverse events. However, limited evidence supports the idea that BFRT is likely safer than HLRT. More evidence with high quality is needed in further research on efficacy and safety.

摘要

目的

评估血流限制训练(BFRT)治疗膝骨关节炎(OA)患者的疗效和安全性。

方法

检索七个电子数据库,以确定在膝OA患者群体中比较BFRT和传统阻力训练的试验。根据纳入和排除标准选择研究。计算标准化均数差(SMD)或风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(95%CI),以比较各组的结局指标。对纳入研究的所选研究的方法学质量和证据质量进行评估。

结果

本荟萃分析共纳入5项研究,偏倚风险极低至中等。汇总结果显示,BFRT与传统阻力训练在膝OA治疗方面无显著差异,包括疼痛(SMD -0.04 [95%CI -0.31, 0.24],P = 0.79)、身体功能表现(SMD 0.12 [95%CI -0.55, 0.78],P = 0.73)、自我报告功能(SMD 0.14 [95%CI -0.24, 0.52],P = 0.48)和不良事件(RR 0.45 [95%CI 0.20, 1.01],P = 0.05)。亚组分析中,与高负荷阻力训练(HLRT)相比,BFRT不良事件发生率较低。

结论

汇总研究数据表明,BFRT治疗膝OA患者可能没有更大疗效,且发生不良事件的风险较高的可能性较小。然而,有限的证据支持BFRT可能比HLRT更安全的观点。在疗效和安全性的进一步研究中需要更多高质量的证据。

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