Acta neurologica Scandinavica · 2020
Effect and efficacy of lifestyle interventions as secondary prevention.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liljehult Jacob, Christensen Thomas, Molsted Stig, Overgaard Dorthe, Mesot Liljehult Monique, Møller Tom
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Improvements in health behaviour are often recommended as part of secondary prevention in patients with stroke and transient ischaemic attack. However, there is a lack of knowledge as to how this is applied in clinical practice.
AIM: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the effect of counselling or educational intervention directed at individual or multiple behavioural risk factors on blood pressure and other reported outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Meta-analyses were conducted on all outcome measures if appropriate. A qualitative analysis of the content of the interventions was conducted to review which elements the interventions consisted of.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials were identified. Fourteen reported effects on systolic blood pressure, and pooled results showed a significant beneficial effect (n = 2,222; -3.85 mmHg [95%CI -6.43; -1.28]). The effect was greatest in the four interventions which included supervised training (n = 174; -9.83 mmHg [95%CI -16.56; -3.09]).
CONCLUSION: Modifying health behaviour in stroke survivors might have a moderate beneficial effect on blood pressure, especially if the intervention includes supervised physical training.
AIM: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the effect of counselling or educational intervention directed at individual or multiple behavioural risk factors on blood pressure and other reported outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Meta-analyses were conducted on all outcome measures if appropriate. A qualitative analysis of the content of the interventions was conducted to review which elements the interventions consisted of.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials were identified. Fourteen reported effects on systolic blood pressure, and pooled results showed a significant beneficial effect (n = 2,222; -3.85 mmHg [95%CI -6.43; -1.28]). The effect was greatest in the four interventions which included supervised training (n = 174; -9.83 mmHg [95%CI -16.56; -3.09]).
CONCLUSION: Modifying health behaviour in stroke survivors might have a moderate beneficial effect on blood pressure, especially if the intervention includes supervised physical training.