RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Whole body vibration (WBV) exercise is a therapy used for individuals with low tolerance to conventional exercises, such as patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to assess the impact of WBV exercise on the functional capacity, muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in severe COPD patients. METHODS: Studies published until March 2024 were reviewed, encompassing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) without temporal or linguistic constraints, comparing WBV exercise with other interventions. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and CINAHL databases were queried. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials 2.0A was employed for quality assessment. RESULTS: Among 351 screened studies, 7 met the criteria, totaling 356 participants (WBV group, n = 182; control group, n = 174). Meta-analysis revealed a significant mean difference of 41.36 m [95%CI (13.28-69.44); p = .004] in the 6-minute walk test distance favoring the WBV group for functional capacity. Lower limb muscle strength improved in 57.14% of included studies. HRQoL meta-analysis demonstrated a 1.13-point difference [95%CI -1.24-3.51; p = .35] favoring WBV, although group differences were not significant. A mean difference of 2.31 points favored the control group in health condition [95%CI (-1.32-5.94); p = .021]. CONCLUSION: WBV exercise is recognized as a promising therapeutic modality for severe COPD patients, notably enhancing functional capacity. Although heterogeneous study protocols weaken the evidence for clinically relevant outcomes, improvements in lower limb muscle strength and HRQoL were also observed, differences between groups were not significant.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes-guided systematic review assesses continuous lateral rotation therapy versus conventional position changes in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, evaluating mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS as primary outcomes and respiratory function, mechanical ventilation duration, pulmonary complications, and adverse events as secondary outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022384258). Searches spanned databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science, without language or publication year restrictions. Inclusion criteria involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials, comparing continuous lateral rotation therapy (intervention) with conventional position changes (control). Risk of bias and quality of evidence for RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the quasi-randomized trials, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool was used. RESULTS: In 18 studies with 1,466 participants (intervention, n = 700, 47.7%; control, n = 766, 52.2%), continuous lateral rotation therapy was predominantly used for prophylactic purposes, with protocols varying from 10-24 h/d. Meta-analysis (16 RCTs) favored continuous lateral rotation therapy for reduced mechanical ventilation duration (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.17 [CI -0.29 to -0.04] d, P = .008) and lower nosocomial pneumonia incidence (odds ratio 0.39 [CI 0.29-0.52], P < .001). Continuous lateral rotation therapy showed no significant impact on mortality (odds ratio 1.04 [CI 0.80-1.34], P = .77), ICU LOS (SMD -0.11 [CI -0.25 to 0.02] d, P = .11), hospital LOS (SMD -0.10 [CI -0.31 to 0.11] d, P = .33), and incidence of pressure ulcers (odds ratio 0.73 [CI 0.34-1.60], P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous lateral rotation therapy showed no significant difference in primary outcomes (mortality, ICU and hospital LOS) but revealed significant differences in secondary outcomes (consistently reduced nosocomial pneumonia, with a minor effect on mechanical ventilation duration), supported by moderate certainty. Very low certainty for other outcomes highlights the need for current studies in diverse clinical settings and protocols to assess continuous lateral rotation therapy effectiveness.