-
Amino Acids Oct 2021Collagen peptide supplementation (COL), in conjunction with exercise, may be beneficial for the management of degenerative bone and joint disorders. This is likely due...
Collagen peptide supplementation (COL), in conjunction with exercise, may be beneficial for the management of degenerative bone and joint disorders. This is likely due to stimulatory effects of COL and exercise on the extracellular matrix of connective tissues, improving structure and load-bearing capabilities. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature available on the combined impact of COL and exercise. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a literature search of three electronic databases-PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL-was conducted in June 2020. Fifteen randomised controlled trials were selected after screening 856 articles. The study populations included 12 studies in recreational athletes, 2 studies in elderly participants and 1 in untrained pre-menopausal women. Study outcomes were categorised into four topics: (i) joint pain and recovery from joint injuries, (ii) body composition, (iii) muscle soreness and recovery from exercise, and (iv) muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and collagen synthesis. The results indicated that COL is most beneficial in improving joint functionality and reducing joint pain. Certain improvements in body composition, strength and muscle recovery were present. Collagen synthesis rates were elevated with 15 g/day COL but did not have a significant impact on MPS when compared to isonitrogenous higher quality protein sources. Exact mechanisms for these adaptations are unclear, with future research using larger sample sizes, elite athletes, female participants and more precise outcome measures such as muscle biopsies and magnetic imagery.
Topics: Body Composition; Collagen; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Humans; Joints; Muscle, Skeletal; Myalgia; Peptides
PubMed: 34491424
DOI: 10.1007/s00726-021-03072-x -
Frontiers in Physiology 2021Post-exercise (i.e., cool-down) stretching is commonly prescribed for improving recovery of strength and range of motion (ROM) and diminishing delayed onset muscular...
The Effectiveness of Post-exercise Stretching in Short-Term and Delayed Recovery of Strength, Range of Motion and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Post-exercise (i.e., cool-down) stretching is commonly prescribed for improving recovery of strength and range of motion (ROM) and diminishing delayed onset muscular soreness (DOMS) after physical exertion. However, the question remains if post-exercise stretching is better for recovery than other post-exercise modalities. To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of supervised randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of post-exercise stretching on short-term (≤1 h after exercise) and delayed (e.g., ≥24 h) recovery makers (i.e., DOMS, strength, ROM) in comparison with passive recovery or alternative recovery methods (e.g., low-intensity cycling). This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42020222091). RCTs published in any language or date were eligible, according to P.I.C.O.S. criteria. Searches were performed in eight databases. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Meta-analyses used the inverse variance random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. From 17,050 records retrieved, 11 RCTs were included for qualitative analyses and 10 for meta-analysis ( = 229 participants; 17-38 years, mostly males). The exercise protocols varied between studies (e.g., cycling, strength training). Post-exercise stretching included static stretching, passive stretching, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Passive recovery (i.e., rest) was used as comparator in eight studies, with additional recovery protocols including low intensity cycling or running, massage, and cold-water immersion. Risk of bias was high in ~70% of the studies. Between-group comparisons showed no effect of post-exercise stretching on strength recovery (ES = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.54-0.39; = 0.750; = 0.0%; Egger's test = 0.531) when compared to passive recovery. In addition, no effect of post-exercise stretching on 24, 48, or 72-h post-exercise DOMS was noted when compared to passive recovery (ES = -0.09 to -0.24; 95% CI = -0.70-0.28; = 0.187-629; = 0.0%; Egger's test = 0.165-0.880). There wasn't sufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis that stretching and passive recovery have equivalent influence on recovery. Data is scarce, heterogeneous, and confidence in cumulative evidence is very low. Future research should address the limitations highlighted in our review, to allow for more informed recommendations. For now, evidence-based recommendations on whether post-exercise stretching should be applied for the purposes of recovery should be avoided, as the (insufficient) data that is available does not support related claims. PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020222091.
PubMed: 34025459
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.677581 -
Nutrients Sep 2022Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are oxidized in the muscle and result in stimulating anabolic signals-which in return may optimize performance, body composition and... (Review)
Review
Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are oxidized in the muscle and result in stimulating anabolic signals-which in return may optimize performance, body composition and recovery. Meanwhile, among athletes, the evidence about BCAA supplementation is not clear. The aim of this study was to review the effects of BCAAs in athletic populations. The research was conducted in three databases: Web of Science (all databases), PubMed and Scopus. The inclusion criteria involved participants classified both as athletes and people who train regularly, and who were orally supplemented with BCAAs. The risk of bias was individually assessed for each study using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). From the 2298 records found, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. Although BCAAs tended to activate anabolic signals, the benefits on performance and body composition were negligible. On the other hand, studies that included resistance participants showed that BCAAs attenuated muscle soreness after exercise, while in endurance sports the findings were inconsistent. The protocols of BCAA supplements differed considerably between studies. Moreover, most of the studies did not report the total protein intake across the day and, consequently, the benefits of BCAAs should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Amino Acids, Branched-Chain; Athletes; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Humans; Myalgia
PubMed: 36235655
DOI: 10.3390/nu14194002 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2022Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.
METHODS
Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.
RESULTS
After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19-negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Sleep Wake Disorders; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 35124265
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.01.014 -
Viruses Apr 2023Since the discovery of SARS-CoV-2, changes in genotype and reinfection with different variants have been observed in COVID-19-recovered patients, raising questions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Since the discovery of SARS-CoV-2, changes in genotype and reinfection with different variants have been observed in COVID-19-recovered patients, raising questions around the clinical pattern and severity of primary infection and reinfection. In this systematic review, we summarize the results of 23 studies addressing SARS-CoV-2 reinfections. A total of 23,231 reinfected patients were included, with pooled estimated reinfection rates ranging from 0.1 to 6.8%. Reinfections were more prevalent during the Omicron variant period. The mean age of reinfected patients was 38.0 ± 6. years and females were predominant among reinfected patients (M/F = 0.8). The most common symptoms during the first and second infection were fever (41.1%), cough (35.7% and 44.6%), myalgia (34.5% and 33.3%), fatigue (23.8% and 25.6%), and headaches (24.4% and 21.4%). No significant differences of clinical pattern were observed between primary infection and reinfection. No significant differences in the severity of infection were observed between primary infection and reinfection. Being female, being a patient with comorbidities, lacking anti-nucleocapsid IgG after the first infection, being infected during the Delta and Omicron wave, and being unvaccinated were associated with a higher risk of reinfection. Conflicting age-related findings were found in two studies. Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 suggests that natural immunity is not long-lasting in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Reinfection; Cough
PubMed: 37112949
DOI: 10.3390/v15040967 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.
METHODS
We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Exercise Therapy; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Myalgia; Pain Measurement; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28436583
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still in a global pandemic state. Some studies have reported that COVID-19 vaccines had a protective effect against long... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still in a global pandemic state. Some studies have reported that COVID-19 vaccines had a protective effect against long COVID. However, the conclusions of the studies on the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID were not consistent. This study aimed to systematically review relevant studies in the real world, and performed a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between vaccination and long COVID. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and ScienceDirect from inception to 19 September 2022. The PICO (P: patients; I: intervention; C: comparison; O: outcome) was as follows: patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (P); vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines (I); the patients were divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (C); the outcomes were the occurrence of long COVID, as well as the various symptoms of long COVID (O). A fixed-effect model and random-effects model were chosen based on the heterogeneity between studies in order to pool the effect value. The results showed that the vaccinated group had a 29% lower risk of developing long COVID compared with the unvaccinated group (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.87, < 0.01). Compared with patients who were not vaccinated, vaccination showed its protective effect in patients vaccinated with two doses (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.94, < 0.01), but not one dose (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.07, = 0.14). In addition, vaccination was effective against long COVD in patients either vaccinated before SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91, < 0.01) or vaccinated after SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.92, < 0.01). For long COVID symptoms, vaccination reduced the risk of cognitive dysfunction/symptoms, kidney diseases/problems, myalgia, and sleeping disorders/problems sleeping. Our study shows that COVID-19 vaccines had an effect on reducing the risk of long COVID in patients vaccinated before or after SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19. We suggest that the vaccination rate should be improved as soon as possible, especially for a complete vaccination course. There should be more studies to explore the basic mechanisms of the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID in the future.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36231717
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912422 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Dec 2022A systematic literature review was conducted up to 15th February 2022 to summarize long COVID evidence and to assess prevalence and clinical presentation in children and... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
A systematic literature review was conducted up to 15th February 2022 to summarize long COVID evidence and to assess prevalence and clinical presentation in children and adolescents. Articles reporting long COVID prevalence and symptoms based on original data in the paediatric population were included. Case series quality was assessed through the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. For observational studies, adherence to STROBE checklist was evaluated. Twenty-two articles were included: 19 observational studies (12 cohort/7 cross-sectional) and 3 case series. Nine studies provided a control group. We found a high variability in terms of prevalence (1.6-70%). The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue (2-87%), headache (3.5-80%), arthro-myalgias (5.4-66%), chest tightness or pain (1.4-51%), and dyspnoea (2-57.1%). Five studies reported limitations in daily function due to long COVID. Alterations at brain imaging were described in one study, transient electrocardiographic abnormalities were described in a minority of children, while most authors did not evidence long-term pulmonary sequelae. Older age, female sex, and previous long-term pathological conditions were more frequently associated with persistent symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Long COVID evidence in children is limited, heterogeneous, and based on low-quality studies. The lockdown consequences are difficult to distinguish from long COVID symptoms. High-quality studies are required: WHO definition of long COVID should be used, controlled clinical studies should be encouraged, and the impact of new variants on long COVID prevalence should be investigated to ensure an objective analysis of long COVID characteristics in children and a proper allocation of healthcare system resources.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Children rarely develop a severe respiratory disease in the acute phase of COVID-19. • A limited number of patients develop a multisystem inflammatory condition that can lead to multiorgan failure and shock.
WHAT IS NEW
• Persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are reported in children and limitations in daily function due to long COVID symptoms affect school attendance. • Functional complaints of post-acute COVID are difficult to be distinguished from those due to social restrictions.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Female; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Communicable Disease Control; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36107254
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04600-x -
International Urology and Nephrology Oct 2017Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major care problem worldwide. Tadalafil and sildenafil are the two most common phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors used to treat ED. This... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major care problem worldwide. Tadalafil and sildenafil are the two most common phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors used to treat ED. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to directly compare tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED.
METHODS
We designed a strategy for searching the PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases; the reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized or non-randomized controlled trials that compared tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED and to assess the quality of the studies. Two investigators independently and blindly screened the studies for inclusion. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0.
RESULTS
A total of 16 trials that compared tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, tadalafil and sildenafil appeared to have similar efficacies and overall adverse event rates. However, compared with sildenafil, tadalafil significantly improved psychological outcomes. Furthermore, the patients and their partners preferred tadalafil over sildenafil, and no significant difference was found in the adherence and persistence rates between tadalafil and sildenafil. Additionally, the myalgia and back pain rates were higher and the flushing rate was lower with tadalafil than with sildenafil.
CONCLUSION
Tadalafil shares a similar efficacy and safety with sildenafil and significantly improves patients' sexual confidence. Furthermore, patients and their partners prefer tadalafil to sildenafil. Hence, tadalafil may be a better choice for ED treatment.
Topics: Back Pain; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Erectile Dysfunction; Flushing; Humans; Male; Myalgia; Patient Preference; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Self Efficacy; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil
PubMed: 28741090
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1644-5 -
Nutrients Jan 2023Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic diet to aid in the multidisciplinary treatment. We conducted a systematic review to investigate if diets can improve pain symptoms of fibromyalgia. Through the PubMed search in March 2022, 126 abstracts were identified. We included both intervention and observational studies of diets and pain symptoms among patients with FMS. After screening titles, abstracts, and full-texts, 12 studies, including 11 intervention and one observational study, were selected. These studies included 546 participants and investigated plant-based diets ( = 3), anti-inflammatory diets ( = 1), gluten-free diets ( = 2), and elimination/restrictive diets ( = 6). These studies assessed pain symptoms through visual analogue scale for pain, fibromyalgia impact questionnaire/revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire, tender point count, pain pressure threshold, and/or total myalgic score. Nine studies, including all three plant-based diet studies, reported statistically significant beneficial effects of their respective diets on pain symptom measurements. Given the small sample size and short intervention duration of the included studies, limited evidence currently exists to recommend any specific diet to patients with FMS. Further research is warranted to clarify specific diets to recommend and explore their potential mechanisms.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Pain Threshold; Diet, Gluten-Free; Pain Measurement; Myalgia; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36771421
DOI: 10.3390/nu15030716