The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults.

BACKGROUND: Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components. METHODS: Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000-April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months. RESULTS: Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [- 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3-4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [- 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (- 834 steps/day [- 1542, - 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (- 812 steps/day [- 1503, - 122]). CONCLUSIONS: Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42017075810 .

Effectiveness of adult community-based physical activity interventions with objective physical activity measurements and long-term follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity (PA) interventions with objective PA outcomes in adults and to evaluate whether intervention effects were sustained beyond 12 months. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts)) were searched from January 2000 until December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs reporting objective PA outcomes beyond 12 months with community-based participants aged ≥18 years were included; those where controls received active interventions, including advice to increase PA levels, were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed extraction of aggregate data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses used random-effects models at different follow-up points. Primary outcomes were daily steps and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). RESULTS: Of 33 282 records identified, nine studies (at generally low risk of bias) were included, five in meta-analyses with 12 months to 4 year follow-up. We observed 12 month increases for intervention vs control participants in steps/day (mean difference (MD)=554 (95% CIs: 384 to 724) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 2446 participants; four studies) and weekly MVPA minutes (MD=35 (95% CI: 27 to 43) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 2647 participants; four studies). Effects were sustained up to 4 years for steps/day (MD=494 (95% CI: 251 to 738) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 1944 participants; four studies) and weekly MVPA minutes (MD=25 (95% CI: 13 to 37) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 1458 participants; three studies). CONCLUSIONS: There are few PA interventions with objective follow-up beyond 12 months, more studies are needed. However, this review provided evidence of PA intervention effects beyond 12 months and sustained up to 4 years for both steps/day and MVPA. These findings have important implications for potential long-term health benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017075753.

The profile of a life-saving researcher.

Research requires different attitudes and skill sets. We should encourage our medical students to contribute to research in their own way.

Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) is one of numerous treatment options available during acute exacerbations. While the efficacy of intravenous MgSO4 has been demonstrated, the role of inhaled MgSO4 is less clear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled MgSO4 administered in acute asthma. SPECIFIC AIMS: to quantify the effects of inhaled MgSO4 I) in addition to combination treatment with inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropium bromide; ii) in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist; and iii) in comparison to inhaled ß2-agonist. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials and online trials registries in September 2017. We supplemented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies and by contact with trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs including adults or children with acute asthma were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies if patients were treated with nebulised MgSO4 alone or in combination with ß2-agonist or ipratropium bromide or both, and were compared with the same co-intervention alone or inactive control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias. We made efforts to collect missing data from authors. We present results, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary function, clinical severity scores and vital signs; and risk ratios (RRs) for hospital admission. We used risk differences (RDs) to analyse adverse events because events were rare. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (43 references) of varying methodological quality were eligible; they included 2907 randomised patients (2777 patients completed). Nine of the 25 included studies involved adults; four included adult and paediatric patients; eight studies enrolled paediatric patients; and in the remaining four studies the age of participants was not stated. The design, definitions, intervention and outcomes were different in all 25 studies; this heterogeneity made direct comparisons difficult. The quality of the evidence presented ranged from high to very low, with most outcomes graded as low or very low. This was largely due to concerns about the methodological quality of the included studies and imprecision in the pooled effect estimates. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropiumWe included seven studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, results were inconsistent overall and the largest study reporting this outcome found no between-group difference at 60 minutes (MD -0.3 % predicted peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), 95% CI -2.71% to 2.11%). Admissions to hospital at initial presentation may be reduced by the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; participants = 1308; studies = 4; I² = 52%) but no difference was detected for re-admissions or escalation of care to ITU/HDU. Serious adverse events during admission were rare. There was no difference between groups for all adverse events during admission (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; participants = 1197; studies = 2). Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonistWe included 13 studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, none of the pooled results showed a conclusive benefit as measured by FEV1 or PEFR. Pooled results for hospital admission showed a point estimate that favoured the combination of MgSO4 and ß2-agonist, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of admissions increasing in the intervention group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15; participants = 375; studies = 6; I² = 0%). There were no serious adverse events reported by any of the included studies and no between-group difference for all adverse events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; participants = 694; studies = 5). Inhaled magnesium sulfate versus inhaled ß2-agonistWe included four studies in this comparison. The evidence for the efficacy of ß2-agonists in acute asthma is well-established and therefore this could be considered a historical comparison. Two studies reported a benefit of ß2-agonist over MgSO4 alone for PEFR and two studies reported no difference; we did not pool these results. Admissions to hospital were only reported by one small study and events were rare, leading to an uncertain result. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies in this comparison; one small study reported mild to moderate adverse events but the result is imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nebulised MgSO4 may result in modest additional benefits for lung function and hospital admission when added to inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide, but our confidence in the evidence is low and there remains substantial uncertainty. The recent large, well-designed trials have generally not demonstrated clinically important benefits. Nebulised MgSO4 does not appear to be associated with an increase in serious adverse events. Individual studies suggest that those with more severe attacks and attacks of shorter duration may experience a greater benefit but further research into subgroups is warranted.Despite including 24 trials in this review update we were unable to pool data for all outcomes of interest and this has limited the strength of the conclusions reached. A core outcomes set for studies in acute asthma is needed. This is particularly important in paediatric studies where measuring lung function at the time of an exacerbation may not be possible. Placebo-controlled trials in patients not responding to standard maximal treatment, including inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide and systemic steroids, may help establish if nebulised MgSO4 has a role in acute asthma. However, the accumulating evidence suggests that a substantial benefit may be unlikely.

Alcohol screening for older adults in an acute general hospital: FAST v. MAST-G assessments.

Aims and method Documented prevalence of alcohol misuse among older adult patients at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital is significantly lower than the national prevalence. We aimed to evaluate our alcohol misuse screening protocol for older adults to identify possible shortcomings. Hospital protocol is to screen all adults for alcohol misuse in the accident and emergency (A&E) department using the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). One hundred consecutive consenting in-patients aged 65-94 admitted via A&E subsequently undertook an additional alcohol screening test (Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test-Geriatric version; MAST-G). Results of the two tests were compared. Results FAST screening was completed for 71 patients and none were FAST-positive for alcohol misuse, yet using MAST-G, 18 patients scored positively for alcohol misuse. FAST screening failed to identify 8 patients with a documented history of alcohol misuse. Clinical implications Older adult alcohol misuse prevalence is significantly underreported using FAST. Screening older adults for alcohol problems requires a different approach to screening the general population.