Literature DB >> 35089364

A comparison of the associations between bone health and three different intensities of accelerometer-derived habitual physical activity in children and adolescents: a systematic review.

Gemma Brailey1, Brad Metcalf2, Rebecca Lear2, Lisa Price2, Sean Cumming3, Victoria Stiles2.   

Abstract

Positive associations have been identified between bone outcomes and accelerometer-derived moderate (MPA) and vigorous (VPA) physical activity (PA) in youth; however, it remains unclear which intensity is most beneficial. This systematic review aimed to summarise accelerometer-derived methods used to estimate habitual PA in children and adolescents and determine whether the magnitude of association was consistently stronger for a particular intensity (MPA/MVPA/VPA). Observational studies assessing associations between accelerometer-derived MPA and/or MVPA and VPA with bone outcomes in children and adolescents (≤ 18 years) were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Thirty articles were included (total n = 20,613 (10,077 males), 4-18 years). Chi-square tests determined whether the proportion of significant associations and strongest within-study associations differed significantly between intensities. Results demonstrated that accelerometer methods were highly variable between studies. Of the 570 associations analysed, 186 were significant (p < 0.05). The proportion of within-study strongest associations differed by PA intensity (3 × 2 χ2 = 86.6, p < 0.001) and was significantly higher for VPA (39%) compared to MVPA (5%; 2 × 2 χ2 = 55.3, p < 0.001) and MPA (9%, 2 × 2 χ2 = 49.1, p < 0.001). Results indicated a greater benefit of VPA over MPA/MVPA; however, variability in accelerometer-derived methods used prevents the precise bone-benefitting amount of VPA from being identified. Long epochs and numerous intensity cut-point definitions mean that bone-relevant PA has likely been missed or misclassified in this population. Future research should explore the use of shorter epochs (1 s) and identify bone-specific activity intensities, rather than using pre-defined activity classifications more relevant to cardiovascular health.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometry; Bone; Children; Physical activity

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35089364      PMCID: PMC9106641          DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06218-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   5.071


  67 in total

1.  Effect of a general school-based physical activity intervention on bone mineral content and density: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ursina Meyer; Michael Romann; Lukas Zahner; Christian Schindler; Jardena J Puder; Marius Kraenzlin; Rene Rizzoli; Susi Kriemler
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  The contribution of bone loss to postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  S L Hui; C W Slemenda; C C Johnston
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  The diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; L J Melton; C Christiansen; C C Johnston; N Khaltaev
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  O Johnell; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-16       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Bone health, activity and sedentariness at age 11-12 years: Cross-sectional Australian population-derived study.

Authors:  William Osborn; Peter Simm; Tim Olds; Kate Lycett; Fiona K Mensah; Josh Muller; Francois Fraysse; Najmi Ismail; Jennifer Vlok; David Burgner; John B Carlin; Ben Edwards; Terence Dwyer; Peter Azzopardi; Sarath Ranganathan; Melissa Wake
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 6.  The National Osteoporosis Foundation's position statement on peak bone mass development and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and implementation recommendations.

Authors:  C M Weaver; C M Gordon; K F Janz; H J Kalkwarf; J M Lappe; R Lewis; M O'Karma; T C Wallace; B S Zemel
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Jumping improves hip and lumbar spine bone mass in prepubescent children: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  R K Fuchs; J J Bauer; C M Snow
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Bouts of Vigorous Physical Activity and Bone Strength Accrual During Adolescence.

Authors:  Leigh Gabel; Heather M Macdonald; Lindsay Nettlefold; Heather A McKay
Journal:  Pediatr Exerc Sci       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 2.333

9.  Eight months of regular in-school jumping improves indices of bone strength in adolescent boys and Girls: the POWER PE study.

Authors:  Benjamin K Weeks; Cath M Young; Belinda R Beck
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Objectively measured physical activity trajectories predict adolescent bone strength: Iowa Bone Development Study.

Authors:  Kathleen F Janz; Elena M Letuchy; Trudy L Burns; Julie M Eichenberger Gilmore; James C Torner; Steven M Levy
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 13.800

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.