EAL

DLM and Physical Activity

Citation:

Study Design:

Class:

- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

Research Purpose:

To summarize the evidence for the benefits of physical activity in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, to provide suggestions to healthcare professionals for implementing physical activity programs for their patients, and to identify areas for future investigation.

Inclusion Criteria:

Not specifically reported. The review does report that the statement focuses on aerobic physical activity and does not directly evaluate resistance exercises.

Exclusion Criteria:

Not reported

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment n/a

Design n/a

Blinding used (if applicable) n/a

Intervention (if applicable)n/a

Statistical Analysis n/a

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements n/a

Dependent Variables n/a

Variable 1: brief description (how measured?)
Variable 2: brief description (how measured?)
etc

Independent Variables n/a

Control Variables n/a

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: (e.g., 731 (298 males, 433 females))

Attrition (final N):

Age:

Ethnicity:

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics (e.g., were groups same or different on important measures)

Location:

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

Variables	Treatment Group Measures and confidence intervals	Control group Measures and confidence intervals	Statistical Significance of Group Difference
Dep var 1	Mean, CI. e.g., 4.5±2.2	Mean, CI. e.g., 1.5±2.0	Stat signif difference between groups e.g., p=.002
Dep var 2
etc

Other Findings

Author Conclusion:

This scientific statement supports the value of exercise and physical activity in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease. Authors support the recommendation from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) that individuals should engage in 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity on most (preferable all) days of the week. Moderate-intensity activities is defined as those performed at a relative intensity of 40% to 60% of Vo2max (or absolute intensity of 4 to 6 METs).

Funding Source:

Reviewer Comments:

The review gives a concise look at the research however because it is a narrative review there are many limitations, the largest being methods of study inclusion/exclusion and the quality of the studies included. One strength of the paper is that the statements were reviewed by and received endorsement of the American College of Sports Medicine.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	No

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	No
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	No
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	No
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	No
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	???
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	No
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	No
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	???