While handgrip strength is associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality, whether such associations are dose-dependent is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review on the dose-response relationship of handgrip strength with all-cause mortality, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality. The data source included three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus) from inception to 8 February 2022. Prospective cohort studies of healthy adults with objective measures of handgrip strength were included. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used estimates regarding handgrip strength categories to conduct a random forest model, and a two-stage random-effects hierarchical meta-regression model pooling study-specific estimates for dose-response relationship. Outcomes included all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality. Forty-eight studies comprising 3,135,473 participants (49.6% women, age range 35-85 years) were included. Random forest models showed a significant inverse association between handgrip strength and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Dose-response meta-analyses showed that higher levels of handgrip strength significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality within 26-50 kg (Higgin´s I² =45.7%) in a close-to-linear inverse fashion. Cancer and cardiovascular mortality displayed a trend towards a U-shaped association with a significant risk reduction between 16 and 33 kg (Higgin´s I² =77.4%), and a close-to-linear inverse shaped and significant risk reduction ranging from 24 to 40 kg (Higgin´s I² =79.7%) respectively. There is strong evidence for an association between lower handgrip strength with higher all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality risk. The dose-response relationship of handgrip strength substantially varies depending on the cause of mortality.

We propose the use of the 1-minute sit-to-stand test (1STST) to evaluate the physical capacity and exertional desaturation one month after discharge in a sample of patients who survived COVID-19 pneumonia. This was a cross-sectional study that collected routine data from consecutive patients admitted to the outpatient program in a public hospital in Chile. Patients were asked to complete a 1STST. Data were analyzed according to those with and without a prolonged hospital stay of >10 days. Eighty-three percent of the patients were able to complete the test (N = 50). The median age was 62.7 ± 12.5 years. The average number of repetitions in the 1STST was 20.9 ± 4.8. Thirty-two percent of patients had a decrease in pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≥ 4 points. The prolonged hospital stay subgroup had a significant increase in exertional desaturation (mean difference = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.9; p = 0.001) and dyspnea (mean difference = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.1; p = 0.042) compared to the group of length of stay ≤10 days. In-hospital survivors of COVID-19, the 1STST showed a decrease in physical capacity at one month in those 90% who were able to complete it. The 1STST was able to discriminate between those with and without a prolonged hospital stay and was able to detect exertional desaturation in some patients.

Handgrip strength is a strong predictor of the risk of mortality. The objective of this systematic review was to analyse handgrip strength measurement protocols used in all-cause and cause-specific mortality studies. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted from inception to February 2022. Prospective cohort studies with objective measures of handgrip strength were included. Studies had to report at least one all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality outcome. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-regression was used to quantify the bias associated with handgrip strength values in relation to the use of different measurement protocols. Forty-eight studies with a total of 3,135,473 participants (49.6% women) were included. Half of the studies controlled body position, 39.6% arm position, 33.3% elbow position, 12.5% wrist position, 13% handgrip duration, 23% hand-adjustment to dynamometer and 12.5% verbal encouragement. The number of measurements, the laterality of the hand tested, and the estimation method of the handgrip strength value varied considerably between the study protocols. The spline regression model showed a non-linear inverse association between the values of handgrip strength and the number of protocol items controlled. Handgrip strength was higher when the number of measurements per hand or arm position was not controlled. Conversely, handgrip strength was lower when elbow position was not controlled or verbal encouragement were not provided. In general, the protocols used to assess handgrip strength in mortality studies are incomplete and highly heterogeneous. Handgrip strength values were higher when studies controlled fewer handgrip strength measurement protocol variables. There is a need to improve the controlling of handgrip strength measurement protocols and to standardise the method to enhance the accuracy of mortality risk estimates associated with handgrip strength. CRD42022334929.

Cardiovascular health (CVH) is a critical issue for global health. However, no previous study has determined the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors based on the American Heart Association´s (AHA) Life’s Essential 8 (LE8). Therefore, we aimed to estimate the global prevalence of the eight cardiovascular risk factors identified in the LE8. A systematic search of systematic reviews with meta-analysis on cardiovascular risk factors covering data reported between 2000 and 2019 was conducted on PubMed, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library until the 1^st of May 2023. After applying exclusion criteria, 79 studies remained in the final selection for the narrative synthesis in the systematic review, of which 33 of them were used in the meta-analysis which included 2,555,639 participants from 104 countries. The overall pooled prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was as follows: insufficient physical activity, 26.3% (95% CI 2.3%-63.4%), no adherence to a healthy diet, 34.1% (95% CI 5.8%-71.2%), nicotine exposure, 15.4% (95% CI 10.4%-21.2%), insufficient sleep quality, 38.5% (95% CI 14.0%-66.7%), obesity, 17.3% (95% CI 6.1%-32.6%), dyslipidemia, 34.1% (95% CI 33.8%-34.4%), diabetes, 12.0% (95% CI 7.0%-18.2%), and hypertension, 29.4% (95% CI 23.3%-35.8%). These results warrant prevention strategies aimed at reducing insufficient sleep quality, and no adherence to a healthy diet as leading cardiovascular risk factor worldwide. The high prevalence of hypertension among children and adults is concerning and should also be adequately addressed through global policies.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical effects of 2 telerehabilitation programs, functional versus aerobic exercises (AEs), both combined with breathing techniques, regarding the improvement of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. The participants were assigned randomly to either the functional exercise (FE) group or AE group, both including breathing techniques. The interventions lasted for 8 weeks with 3 sessions per week, and they were conducted through the Fisiotrack mobile phone application. Assessments were performed at baseline and after treatment, including testing fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale), dyspnea (London Chest Activity of Daily Living Scale), functional performance (30 Seconds Standing Test), perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Questionnaire), and quality of life (European Quality of Life Scale). The perceived change after treatment (Patient Global Impression of Change Scale), the usability of the application (System Usability Scale), and the adherence to treatment were also examined after treatment. Results: In total, 43 participants (FE group, n = 21; AE group, n = 22; mean age = 42.4 [SD = 6.5] years) completed the study. In the intragroup comparison, the FE group showed improved fatigue (−6.7 points; 95% CI = −11.9 to −1.3), functional capacity (2.6 repetitions; 95% CI = 0.3 to 4.9), and perceived stress (−4.9 points; 95% CI = −9.1 to 0.8), while the AE group showed improved perceived stress (−6.2 points; 95% CI = −10.3 to −2.1). No significant differences in the intergroup effect were identified for the studied variables. Significant differences were observed in the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale in favor of the FE group compared to the AE group, and quality of life reached the minimal clinically important difference for both groups. The ease of use of the telerehabilitation tool was rated excellent in both groups. Conclusions: Both telerehabilitation exercise modalities are effective at improving stress symptoms and quality of life in patients with long COVID-19. For improving fatigue and functional performance, FE shows more promising results. Impact: FE or AE may be recommended depending on patients’ symptoms, and both may improve quality of life and stress symptoms in patients with long COVID-19. Telerehabilitation may be an optimal intervention modality for the prescription of physical exercise in patients with long COVID-19.