Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Quality of resistance training description in COPD trials: study protocol for a systematic review
  1. Bennie Westra1,
  2. Sander de Wolf2,
  3. Eline bij de Vaate3,
  4. Monique Legemaat3,
  5. André Nyberg4,
  6. Peter Klijn3,5
  1. 1 Department of Physiotherapy, Antonius Hospital, Sneek, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Division of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Pulmonology, Merem Pulmonary Rehabilitation Centre, Hilversum, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
  5. 5 Department of Pulmonology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Peter Klijn; pklijn{at}merem.nl

Abstract

Introduction Limb muscle dysfunction is a common manifestation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimising of limb muscle function is therefore an important goal during pulmonary rehabilitation of patients with COPD. Resistance training (RT) is the best available intervention to achieve this goal. Previous systematic reviews on RT primarily focused on methodological quality. However, the intervention holds the essence of each experimental study. Replication of RT interventions requires clear, complete and accessible reporting of the essential components. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) provides evidence-based guidelines for RT prescription and recommends RT models specific to desired outcomes, that is, improvements in strength, muscular hypertrophy, power or local muscle endurance. The aim of this review is to investigate if the application of the RT principles and key training variables is described sufficiently in current evidence on the effects of RT interventions in patients with COPD.

Methods and analysis Any research study (randomised, non-randomised controlled, controlled pre–post studies and observational studies) with an RT intervention in patients with COPD will be considered for this systematic review. Potentially relevant studies published in English from inception to 1 October 2017 will be identified from Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Studies exploring the effects of RT following a single session and RT interventions limited to other respiratory chronic diseases will not be included. Additionally, studies including non-COPD participants will be excluded, if the COPD data are not separated. Pairs of reviewers will independently extract data using data collecting sheets. Quality appraisal of RT description will be performed in timeframes according to the latest published ACSM position statement on exercise or RT.

Ethics and dissemination This protocol is a systematic review and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at scientific conferences.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017067403.

  • rehabilitation medicine
  • respiratory medicine (see thoracic medicine)
  • sports medicine

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Contributors PK and BW are the guarantors for the protocol and contributed equally to the development of the protocol and they also drafted the protocol. All authors contributed to the development of the eligibility criteria, assessment strategy, search strategy and data extraction criteria. They also read, provided feedback and approved the revised final protocol.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.