Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I² 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I² 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [−0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I² 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

Cardiovascular diseases cause 17 million deaths annually worldwide, of which hypertension is responsible for 9.4 million and a 7% burden of disease. High blood pressure is responsible for 45% of deaths from heart disease and 51% of deaths from stroke. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of isometric resistance training on systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure (SBP, DBP, and MAP, respectively) values in normotensive adult participants. This study was registered with the PROSPERO database. Eligible studies were identified after performing a systematic search within the following databases: PubMed, Scielo, BioMed Central, Clinical Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCO. Randomized controlled trials that categorized participants as normotensive according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology were included. Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level 1. Data related to participant characteristics, exercise programs, level of evidence, risk of bias, Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, and outcomes of interest were systematically reviewed independently by 2 authors. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included. The following reductions in blood pressure (compared with the control group) were generated by isometric resistance training: SBP (mean difference [MD], −2.83 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.95 to −1.72; P < 0.00001), DBP (MD, −2.73; 95% CI, −4.23 to −1.24; P = 0.0003), and MAP (MD, −3.07; 95% CI, −5.24 to −0.90; P = 0.005). It appears that isometric resistance training reduces SBP, DBP, and MAP in normotensive young adults in a statistically significant and clinically relevant manner. This type of exercise could be considered effective in preventing arterial hypertension.

The aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the current evidence for the effects of resistance training (RT) on blood pressure (BP) as the main outcome and body mass index (BMI) in children and adolescents. Two authors systematically searched the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science Core Collection and EMBASE electronic databases. Inclusion criteria were: (1) children and adolescents (aged 8 to 18 years); (2) intervention studies including RT and (3) outcome measures of BP and BMI. The selected studies were analyzed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. Eight articles met inclusion criteria totaling 571 participants. The mean age ranged from 9.3 to 15.9 years and the mean BMI of 29.34 (7.24) kg/m²). Meta-analysis indicated that RT reduced BMI significantly (mean difference (MD): −0.43 kg/m² (95% CI: −0.82, −0.03), P = 0.03; I² = 5%) and a non-significant decrease in systolic BP (SBP) (MD: −1.09 mmHg (95% CI: −3.24, 1.07), P = 0.32; I² = 67%) and diastolic BP (DBP) (MD: −0.93 mmHg (95% CI: −2.05, 0.19), P = 0.10; I² = 37%). Limited evidence suggests that RT has no adverse effects on BP and may positively affect BP in youths. More high-quality studies are needed to clarify the association between RT and BP in light of body composition changes throughout childhood and adolescence.

Background: Surgical-related incidents are a common cause of in-hospital adverse events. Surgical patient safety would benefit from evidence-based practices, but a comprehensive collection of patient safety recommendations is still lacking. This study aimed to compile and assess the perioperative patient safety recommendations for adults. Method: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines was conducted using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Virtual Health Library Regional Portal, and Trip Database from 2012 to 2022. Eligibility criteria followed a PICAR strategy for patient safety recommendations in the perioperative care continuum. Guidelines were appraised for quality, particularly focusing on the ‘rigour of development’ domain of the AGREE-II tool for those containing strong recommendations. Descriptive analyses were conducted, emphasizing guideline quality, recommendation strength, and the supporting level of evidence. Results: From the 267 guidelines, 4666 perioperative patient safety recommendations were extracted, of which 44.9% (2095) were strongly recommended. Of these, 322 had the highest level of evidence, but only 18 guidelines met high standards in the AGREE-II ‘rigour of development’ domain. A subset of 78 recommendations ranked the highest in the strength of recommendation, level of evidence, and rigour of development of their guidelines. A gap was found within pre-admission and post-discharge care recommendations. Discussion: This review highlights the noteworthy variability in the methodological quality of the guidelines, and a discordance between strength of recommendation and evidence level of the available perioperative patient safety recommendations. These findings provide valuable information for advising policy decisions and promoting best practices to enhance global surgical safety. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022347449).

And objectives: This systematic review summarized the evidence on the effects (benefits and harms) of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). We included randomized controlled trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation to either active interventions or usual care regardless of setting. In March 2022, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Web of Sciences, and trial registries. Record screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This systematic review included 18 studies (n = 1465), involving a combination of mixed settings (8 studies), inpatient settings (8 studies), and outpatient settings (2 studies). The studies were at high risk of performance, detection, and reporting biases. Compared to usual care, pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves AECOPD-related hospital readmissions (relative risk 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence) and cardiovascular submaximal capacity (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99; moderate certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation may be beneficial on re-exacerbations, dyspnoea, and impact of disease. The evidence regarding the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and mortality is very uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Our results indicate that pulmonary rehabilitation may be an effective treatment option for patients with AECOPD, irrespective of setting. Our certainty in this evidence base was limited due to small studies, heterogeneous rehabilitation programs, numerous methodological weaknesses, and a poor reporting of findings that were inconsistent with each other. Trialists should adhere to the latest reporting standards to strengthen this body of evidence. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/amgbz/).

To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations. We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using AGREE-II, and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the AGREE-REX tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses. We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last five years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (p0.05). The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.