| Literature DB >> 32159647 |
Cynthia Correa Lopes Barbosa1, Catiana Leila Possamai Romanzini2, Mariana Biagi Batista3, Rômulo Araújo Fernandes4, Marcelo Romanzini2, Han Kemper5, Manuel João Coelho-E-Silva6, Enio Ricardo Vaz Ronque2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to verify the relationship between neuromuscular fitness indicators in childhood/adolescence and bone strength variables in adulthood. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted in PUBMED, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, LILACS, and SciELO, covering the entire period until March 2019. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 1149 studies. After duplicity analysis and eligibility criteria, four studies were reported. In one study, baseline was childhood and, in the others, adolescence. In childhood, when adjusting the model for age and body mass index, a statistically significant relation was found for girls: standing long jump with quantitative ultrasound index (β=0.11; p<0.05) and with speed of sound (β=0.14; p<0.01). However, when controlling muscular performance in adulthood, the relationship was no longer significant. In adolescence, coefficients ranged from 0.16 for neuromotor battery and bone mineral density (BMD) in the lumbar region to 0.38 for hanging leg lift test and BMD of arms. The explained variance varied between 2% (bent arm hang for BMD total) and 12% (hanging leg-lift for BMD arms), therefore, a higher performance in neuromuscular fitness in adolescence was associated with better bone strength in adulthood.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32159647 PMCID: PMC7063593 DOI: 10.1590/1984-0462/2020/38/2019119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr ISSN: 0103-0582
Adaptation of the STROBE checklist for quality classification of the studies.
| Item | Topic and recommendation |
|---|---|
| 1 | Title and Abstract: a) Included in the title and/or abstract at least one of the keywords used in the search; b) Abstract provides a synopsis of what was performed and found. |
| 2 | Introduction: Explained the reasons and scientific basis for conducting the research. |
| 3 | Introduction: Includes general and specific objectives clearly considering any pre-established hypotheses. |
| 4 | Methods: Presented at the beginning of the document the key elements of the study design. |
| 5 | Methods: Described the relevant context, places, and dates, including recruitment, exposure, monitoring, and data collection periods. |
| 6 | Methods: Presented the eligibility criteria, as well as the sources and methods of selecting the participants. Specify follow-up methods when applicable (cohort studies). |
| 7 | Methods: Clearly defined all variables: response, exposure, predictive, confounding, and effect modifiers. If applicable, provided diagnostic criteria. |
| 8 | Methods: Specified and detailed the methods and instruments of measurement. |
| 9 | Methods: Sample size was rationally determined. |
| 10 | Methods: a) Explained how the quantitative variables were treated in the analysis; b) At least one statistical test was performed to verify the relationship in question. |
| 11 | Results: a) Presented at least one numerical information related to the analysis of the relationship in question; b) If variables categorized, described the cut-off points. |
| 12 | Results: Provided unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, adjusted for confounding factors (specify), as well as their accuracy (e.g., 95% confidence intervals). |
| 13 | Discussion: Summarized the main results of the study. |
| 14 | Discussion: Discuss the limitations, consider possible sources of bias or inaccuracy. |
| 15 | Discussion: a) Presented a prudent overall interpretation of the results considering the objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyzes, and results of similar studies; b) Discussed the possibility of generalizing the results (external validity). |
Figure 1Diagram of the article selection process.
Description of the quality evaluation of studies included in this systematic review. Criteria adapted from the STROBE checklist.
| References - online databases | Item | Total | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ||
| 1. Kemper et al., (2000) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 13 |
| 2. Delvaux et al., (2001) | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 13.5 |
| 3. Barnekow-Bergkvist et al., (2006) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| 4. Foley et al., (2008) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 14 |
Results of the studies included in the systematic review.
| Author/ages | Sample | Neuromuscular fitness | Bone strength | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kemper et al. BS: 13-16 years FUp: 21-27 years |
83 Boys 98 Girls | Battery with 7 tests: ArmP, BAH, 10 LL, 10x5 m SR, S-R, plate tapping, SLJ; single score | BMD lumbar (L1-L4), femoral neck, distal radius; DXA | Regression coefficient revealed that neuromuscular fitness in adolescence was correlated with lumbar (0.16; p=0.05) and femoral neck BMD (0.18; p=0.05) |
|
Delvaux et al. BS: 13 years FUp1: 18 years FUp2: 40 years | 126 Boys |
LL, BAH, vertical jump, ArmP; Absolute score of change in performance was calculated between 18 and 13 years | BMD and BMC TB and lumbar region; DXA | Correlated in ArmP and the TB (r=0.19*) and lumbar BMC (r=0.21*), and in LL and the BMC of the TB (r=0.19*). At 18 years, BAH with total BMC (r=0.21*), ArmP total BMC (r=0.28*) and lumbar BMC (r=0.27*) |
|
Barnekow-Bergkvist et al. BS: 15-17 years FUp: 35-37 years | 36 Girls | Hanging LL, handgrip, two HL | TB, arms, legs, lumbar, trochanter, femoral neck BMD; DXA | Two HL was predictor for TB BMD (R2adj=0.10*); the hanging LL (R2adj=0.12*) and handgrip (R2adj=0.08*) for BMD arms; and the two HL for BMD legs (R2adj=0.11*) and BMD trochanter (R2adj=0.08*) |
|
Foley et al. BS: 7-15 years FUp: 26-36 years |
691 Boys 743 Girls | Leg strength test with dynamometer, SLJ | Ultrasound of calcaneal | In boys, no measure was predictive of quantitative ultrasound parameters. In girls too, after adjusted for performance adult, SLJ with QUI (β=0.07) and with speed of sound (β=0.08) |
BS: baseline; FUp: follow-up; ArmP: arm pull; BAH: bent arm hang; LL: leg lift; SR: shuttle run; S-R: sit and reach; SLJ: standing long jump; HL: hand lift; BMD: bone mineral density (g/cm2); BMC: bone mineral content (g); TB: total body; DXA: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; QUI: quantitative ultrasound index; *p-value<0.05 or p-value<0.01.