↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercise as adjunctive therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Exercise as adjunctive therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd014816.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Frade, Sean O'Neill, David Greene, Elise Nutter, Melainie Cameron

Abstract

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a rare, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a prevalence varying from 4.3 to 150 people in 100,000, or approximately five million people worldwide. Systemic manifestations frequently include internal organ involvement, a characteristic malar rash on the face, pain in joints and muscles, and profound fatigue. Exercise is purported to be beneficial for people with SLE. For this review, we focused on studies that examined all types of structured exercise as an adjunctive therapy in the management of SLE. To evaluate the benefits and harms of structured exercise as adjunctive therapy for adults with SLE compared with usual pharmacological care, usual pharmacological care plus placebo and usual pharmacological care plus non-pharmacological care. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 March 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological treatment in SLE compared with placebo, usual pharmacological care alone and another non-pharmacological treatment. Major outcomes were fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, quality of life, pain, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to any reason, including any adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. fatigue, 2. functional capacity, 3. disease activity, 4. quality of life, 5. pain, 6. serious adverse events, and 7. withdrawals due to any reason. Our minor outcomes were 8. responder rate, 9. aerobic fitness, 10. depression, and 11. anxiety. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. The primary comparison was exercise compared with placebo. We included 13 studies (540 participants) in this review. Studies compared exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological care (antimalarials, immunosuppressants, and oral glucocorticoids) with usual pharmacological care plus placebo (one study); usual pharmacological care (six studies); and another non-pharmacological treatment such as relaxation therapy (seven studies). Most studies had selection bias, and all studies had performance and detection bias. We downgraded the evidence for all comparisons because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus placebo plus usual pharmacological care Evidence from a single small study (17 participants) that compared whole body vibration exercise to whole body placebo vibration exercise (vibrations switched off) indicated that exercise may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report disease activity, quality of life, and serious adverse events. The study measured fatigue using the self-reported Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), scale 0 to 52; lower score means less fatigue. People who did not exercise rated their fatigue at 38 points and those who did exercise rated their fatigue at 33 points (mean difference (MD) 5 points lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.29 lower to 3.29 higher). The study measured functional capacity using the self-reported 36-item Short Form health questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Function domain, scale 0 to 100; higher score means better function. People who did not exercise rated their functional capacity at 70 points and those who did exercise rated their functional capacity at 67.5 points (MD 2.5 points lower, 95% CI 23.78 lower to 18.78 higher). The study measured pain using the SF-36 Pain domain, scale 0 to 100; lower scores mean less pain. People who did not exercise rated their pain at 43 points and those who did exercise rated their pain at 34 points (MD 9 points lower, 95% CI 28.88 lower to 10.88 higher). More participants from the exercise group (3/11, 27%) withdrew from the study than the placebo group (1/10, 10%) (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 22.16). Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus usual pharmacological care alone The addition of exercise to usual pharmacological care may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and disease activity (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the addition of exercise improves pain (very low-certainty evidence), or results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events and quality of life were not reported. Exercise plus usual care versus another non-pharmacological intervention such as receiving information about the disease or relaxation therapy Compared with education or relaxation therapy, exercise may reduce fatigue slightly (low-certainty evidence), may improve functional capacity (low-certainty evidence), probably results in little to no difference in disease activity (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and serious adverse events were not reported. Due to low- to very low-certainty evidence, we are not confident on the benefits of exercise on fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, and pain, compared with placebo, usual care, or advice and relaxation therapy. Harms data were not well reported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 20 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Psychology 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 20 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,546,583
of 24,796,946 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,032
of 12,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,003
of 398,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,946 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.