Table 7 Recommendations to improve reporting quality of exercise intervention reviews in older adults (> 60 years)
Domain | Recommendations and benefits of reporting and analyzing exercise intensity for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (% of Ratings ≥ 7) | Average Rating (M ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
Moderator | The % of subjective or objective maximum (i.e., % of maximum heart rate) should be integrated as a moderator for the meta-analysis. (95%) | 8.6 ± 1.2 |
The intensity categories (light, moderate, vigorous, high) should be considered as moderators. (90%) | 8.6 ± 1.6 | |
Effects | Reviews should look for indication that researchers clearly followed best available evidence such as described by American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) [25], and TIDieR checklist. (90%) | 8.5 ± 1.4 |
The physical fitness at baseline should be integrated as a moderator variable. (90%) | 8.4 ± 1.6 | |
Intensity can be one outcome measure to explore the effect of an intervention. (80%) | 8.3 ± 2.2 | |
Other recommendations | The review authors should reach out to the first author when information (e.g., about intensity) is missing. (78%) | 8.2 ± 2.0 |
An intensity score/scale system should be proposed in order to have a semiquantitative description of the different levels of intensity (and their expected effects) e.g., standardized list such as the Compendium of Physical Activities [27]. (85%) | 8.2 ± 1.9 | |
Studies not reporting intensity levels should also be included in subanalysis (based on frequency, duration, type). (85%) | 8.1 ± 2.0 | |
All data should be converted to METs for the meta-analysis. (68%) | 7.2 ± 2.5 | |
A lack of objective measurements to describe exercise intensity should be mentioned in the quality assessment. (89%) | 8.5 ± 2.2 | |
Trust the authors/suggest accepting if they define an intervention e.g., as moderate. (66%) | 7.1 ± 2.4 |