Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30701461›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

Institutional Guidelines for Resistance Exercise Training in Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.

Andressa Santoro Faber Fidalgo, Paulo Farinatti, Juliana Pereira Borges, Tainah de Paula, Walace Monteiro

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andressa Santoro Faber FidalgoGraduate Program in Physical Activity Sciences, Salgado de Oliveira University, Bloco A, Rua Marechal Deodoro, 217, bloco A, Centro, Niterói, RJ, CEP 24030-060, Brazil.
Paulo FarinattiGraduate Program in Physical Activity Sciences, Salgado de Oliveira University, Bloco A, Rua Marechal Deodoro, 217, bloco A, Centro, Niterói, RJ, CEP 24030-060, Brazil.
Juliana Pereira BorgesLaboratory of Physical Activity and Health Promotion, Institute of Physical Education and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, sala 8121F, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil.
Tainah de PaulaLaboratory of Physical Activity and Health Promotion, Institute of Physical Education and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, sala 8121F, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil.
Walace MonteiroGraduate Program in Physical Activity Sciences, Salgado de Oliveira University, Bloco A, Rua Marechal Deodoro, 217, bloco A, Centro, Niterói, RJ, CEP 24030-060, Brazil. walacemonteiro@uol.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9736-1341
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInstitutional position stands are useful for practitioners when designing exercise routines for specific populations. Resistance training has been included in programs for patients with cardiovascular disease.

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to analyze institutional guidelines providing recommendations for resistance training applied to cardiovascular disease.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception until 30 April, 2018.

resultsOf 994 articles initially found, 13 position stands were retained. Consensual indications occurred only for number of sets (one to three sets) and training frequency (two to three sessions/week). Recommendations concerning other major training variables were discordant regarding workload (none or loads ranging from < 30% up to 80% 1 repetition maximum) and exercise order (none or vaguely indicating alternation of muscle groups or circuit format), or insufficient regarding intervals between sets and exercises or number and type of exercises. Overall, guidelines lack recommendations of specific procedures for each type of disease at different severity levels, cardiovascular risk during exercise, or criteria for training progression.

conclusionsRecommendations provided by institutional guidelines appear to be insufficient to support adequate resistance training prescription in the context of cardiovascular disease.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingCardiovascular DiseasesExercise TherapyHumansPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30701461
OpenAlexW2914343207

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.