Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Influence of combined exercise training on indices of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes patients [with consumer summary] |
Lambers S, van Laethem C, van Acker K, Calders P |
Clinical Rehabilitation 2008 Jun;22(6):483-492 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of combined exercise training on indices of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes patients. DESIGN: A double-blind randomized controlled trial with patients receiving either combination (COM), endurance (END) or no training (C). SETTING: Sint-Jozef hospital (Belgium), general practice (Holland). SUBJECTS: Forty-six type 2 diabetes patients (17 female, 29 male). INTERVENTIONS: COM versus END and C. Patients exercised for three months, three times a week for 1 hour. MAIN MEASURES: Six-minute walk test (6MWT), peak VO2, strength in upper and lower limbs, sit-to-stand, height, weight, body mass index, fat mass, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), glycaemia, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), total cholesterol and quality of life (General Health Survey Short Form (SF-36)). RESULTS: COM had significant better results on sit-to-stand (p < 0.05), 6MWT (p < 0.01), strength in upper (p < 0.001) and lower limbs (p < 0.001) compared with C. A different evolution among COM and C was found for HbA1c (p < 0.05) and cholesterol (p < 0.01), both decreased in COM and increased in C. HDL increased in COM and decreased in C (p < 0.01). END had significant higher results on the 6MWT (p < 0.01) compared with C. Compared with END, COM had significantly higher results on strength in upper (p < 0.01) and lower limbs (p < 0.01). The evolution of SF-36 items was not significantly different between the three groups. CONCLUSION: In diabetes type 2 patients, COM had significant better effects on indices of physical condition, diabetes and cardiovascular risk compared with C. Compared with END, COM gave a tendency towards better results, however more research with a larger number of participants is needed.
|