Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), İstanbul, Türkiye; Koç University Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye; Hasselt University, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), İstanbul, Türkiye; Koç University Graduate School of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye; University of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Aug;105(8):1545-1558. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012. Epub 2024 Jan 8.
The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.
本研究旨在进行荟萃分析，以确定高强度间歇训练（HIIT）方案是否比多发性硬化症患者（PwMS）的中等持续训练（MCT）更有利于改善结果测量。它还旨在系统地审查运动方案的差异。
在六个数据库中执行了一项搜索策略，以查找 PwMS 中的 HIIT，包括 PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane 中央、Pedro 和 Ovid MEDLine。
包括利用自行车测力计或卧式踏步机作为运动方式的 HIIT 随机对照试验。干预组应包括至少两个干预组，其中一组包括 HIIT，另一组包括 MCT。
从每项研究中提取的数据包括以下项目：研究的基本细节（如作者、发表日期、地点和研究设计）、参与者特征（样本量、平均年龄、性别、平均疾病持续时间和扩展残疾状况量表）、HITT 方案的规格（运动方式、会议持续时间、间隔次数/会议、间隔强度、恢复强度、恢复间隔和不良反应），以及基线和干预后（心肺功能、疲劳、身体成分、认知功能和血液生物标志物）的主要结果。
系统评价共纳入 22 项研究，其中 11 项采用随机效应模型进行合并分析。与 MCT 相比，HIIT 在心肺功能的 VO2max 方面具有显著的优势（ES=0.45 95%CI [0.14, 0.76]，P=.004），在认知功能的记忆域方面也具有显著的优势（ES=0.34 95%CI [0.05, 0.63]，P=.02）。其他变量没有达到统计学意义。
HIIT 和 MCT 在疲劳、身体成分、认知功能和血液生物标志物方面的结果相似。然而，心肺功能的 VO2max 和认知功能的记忆域有利于 HIIT 方案。
