Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15. REVIEW METHODS: Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately. FINDINGS: Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095033.

Hand, but not foot, cues generate increases in salience at the pointed-at location.

One line of research has indicated that directional social cues, such as eye gaze and pointed fingers, increase the salience of spatial locations or objects in a relatively involuntary manner (social cueing effect). A separate line of research has indicated that the compatibility between the body part that is observed by an actor primes and facilitates responses with a similar body part more than a dissimilar body part (body-part compatibility effect). The present experiment investigated whether or not social cueing effects were modulated by the relationship between the responding effector and the body part observed as the cue. To this end, non-predictive directional hand or foot cues were presented 100 or 1000 ms prior to a target. On different blocks of trials, participants (n = 19) executed discrete hand-button and foot-pedal responses to the location of a target to examine the influence of cue-effector body-part compatibility on social cueing effects. Response times (RTs) of both hand and foot responses were shorter to cued targets than to uncued targets when hand cues were used. No cueing effects emerged when foot cues were used, regardless of the responding effector. These results suggest changes in salience following social cues are determined by the body part used as the cue and are not modulated by the compatibility between the limb used as the cue and effector. Overall, the social relevance and learned use of a cue seem more pertinent than body-part matching of a stimulus type and response effector in social cueing.