No abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the predictive performance of five handgrip strengths for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors.MethodsA total of 804 Chinese middle-aged community residents' health medical examinations were collected. The absolute handgrip strength was denoted as HGS. HGS/body weight (HGS/BW), HGS/body mass index (HGS/BMI), HGS/lean body mass (HGS/LBM), and HGS/muscle mass (HGS/MM) represented relative handgrip strength (RHGS). To assess predictive performance, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were constructed.ResultsHGS was not associated with most CVD risk biomarkers; however, RHGS showed a negative correlation trend after controlling for covariates (sex, age, smoking, and exercise). HGS/BMI and HGS/BW had better AUCs for predicting CVD risk factors than HGS/LBM or HGS/MM. HGS/BMI and HGS/BW can successfully predict all CVD risk factors in men with AUCs 0.55–0.65; similarly, women may effectively predict arteriosclerosis, hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia, and metabolic syndrome with AUCs 0.59–0.64, all p < 0.05. The optimal HGS/BW cut-off points for identifying different CVD risk factors were 0.59–0.61 in men and 0.41–0.45 in women, while the HGS/BMI were 1.75–1.79 in men and 1.11–1.15 in women.ConclusionsAlmost all CVD risk biomarkers and CVD risk factors were unrelated to HGS. There is, however, a significant inverse relationship between RHGS and CVD risk factors. HGS/BMI or HGS/BW should be recommended to be the best choice for predicting the risk of CVD risk factors in five expressions of handgrip strength. We also acquired the recommended optimal cut-off points of HGS/BMI and HGS/BW for predicting CVD risk factors.

Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a well-established treatment for patients with chronic lung disease; however, its role in patients with COVID-19 has not been systematically studied. We provide a protocol outlining the methods and analyses that will be used in the systematic review. Methods: The methodology of this systematic review protocol has been filed in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42022301418. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and CNKI databases) will be searched from 2019 to 28 July 2022, using pre-determined search terms. Eligibility criteria will be defined using a PICOS framework. Pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life will be the primary outcomes. Quantitative findings will be narratively synthesized, whilst argument synthesis combined with refutational analysis will be employed to synthesize qualitative data. Results: The results will be presented by both meta-analysis and qualitative analysis. Conclusion: This protocol describes what will be the first systematic review to conduct a worldwide assessment of the effect of PR in patients with COVID-19. Because this is a systematic review and meta-analysis, no ethical approval is needed. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated both electronically and in print.

Background: The viewpoints of previous studies on the correlation between exercise and cellular lipid peroxidation are contradictory from many perspectives and lack evidence for elder individuals. A new systematic review with network meta-analysis is necessary and will have significant practical value to provide high-quality evidence in the development of exercise protocols and an evidence-based guide for antioxidant supplementation for the elderly.Aims: To identify the cellular lipid peroxidation induced by different types of exercise, with or without antioxidant supplementation, in elderly individuals.Methods: Randomized controlled trials that recruited elderly participants and reported cellular lipid peroxidation indicators and were published in peer-reviewed journals in English were searched by a Boolean logic search strategy and screened in the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. The outcome measures were the biomarkers of oxidative stress in cell lipids in urine and blood, namely F2-isoprostanes, hydrogen peroxide (LOOH, PEROX, or LIPOX), malondialdehyde (MDA), and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS).Result: 7 trials were included. A combination program of aerobic exercise (AE), low-intensity resistance training (LIRT), and a placebo intake (Placebo) and a combination program of aerobic exercise, low-intensity resistance training, and antioxidant supplementation (S) had the most and sub-most potential to dampen cellular lipid peroxidation (AE + LIRT + Placebo: 0.31 in Rank 1 and 0.2 in Rank 2; AE + LIRT + S: 0.19 in Rank 1 and 0.20 in Rank 2); A placebo intake (Placebo) and a blank intervention without exercise (NE) had the most and sub-most potential to induce an enhancement of cellular lipid peroxidation (Placebo: 0.51 in Rank 9 and 0.16 in Rank 8; NE: 0.16 in Rank 9 and 0.28 in Rank 8). All included studies had an unclear risk of selecting reporting. There were no high confidence ratings in all the direct and indirect comparisons, 4 comparisons in the direct evidence structure and 7 comparisons in the indirect evidence structure had moderate confidence.Conclusion: A combined protocol consisting of aerobic exercise and low-intensity resistance training is recommended to dampen cellular lipid peroxidation. Extra antioxidant supplementation might be unnecessary if an elderly individual has enough aerobic and resistance exercise.Systematic Review Registration: CRD42022367430