| 1. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
- Price, OJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence of lower airway dysfunction in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis by a subgroup of the IOC consensus group on 'acute respiratory illness in the athlete'
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 56:4, s. 213-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To report the prevalence of lower airway dysfunction in athletes and highlight risk factors and susceptible groups.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, EBSCOhost and Web of Science (1 January 1990 to 31 July 2020).Eligibility criteriaOriginal full-text studies, including male or female athletes/physically active individuals/military personnel (aged 15–65 years) who had a prior asthma diagnosis and/or underwent screening for lower airway dysfunction via self-report (ie, patient recall or questionnaires) or objective testing (ie, direct or indirect bronchial provocation challenge).ResultsIn total, 1284 studies were identified. Of these, 64 studies (n=37 643 athletes) from over 21 countries (81.3% European and North America) were included. The prevalence of lower airway dysfunction was 21.8% (95% CI 18.8% to 25.0%) and has remained stable over the past 30 years. The highest prevalence was observed in elite endurance athletes at 25.1% (95% CI 20.0% to 30.5%) (Q=293, I2=91%), those participating in aquatic (39.9%) (95% CI 23.4% to 57.1%) and winter-based sports (29.5%) (95% CI 22.5% to 36.8%). In studies that employed objective testing, the highest prevalence was observed in studies using direct bronchial provocation (32.8%) (95% CI 19.3% to 47.2%). A high degree of heterogeneity was observed between studies (I2=98%).ConclusionLower airway dysfunction affects approximately one in five athletes, with the highest prevalence observed in those participating in elite endurance, aquatic and winter-based sporting disciplines. Further longitudinal, multicentre studies addressing causality (ie, training status/dose–response relationship) and evaluating preventative strategies to mitigate against the development of lower airway dysfunction remain an important priority for future research.
|
|
| 6. |
- Reier-Nilsen, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic approach to lower airway dysfunction in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis by a subgroup of the IOC consensus on 'acute respiratory illness in the athlete'
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 57:8, s. 481-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the performance of various diagnostic bronchoprovocation tests (BPT) in the assessment of lower airway dysfunction (LAD) in athletes and inform best clinical practice.DesignSystematic review with sensitivity and specificity meta-analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, EBSCOhost and Web of Science (1 January 1990–31 December 2021).Eligibility criteriaOriginal full-text studies, including athletes/physically active individuals (15–65 years) who underwent assessment for LAD by symptom-based questionnaires/history and/or direct and/or indirect BPTs.ResultsIn 26 studies containing data for quantitative meta-analyses on BPT diagnostic performance (n=2624 participants; 33% female); 22% had physician diagnosed asthma and 51% reported LAD symptoms. In athletes with symptoms of LAD, eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea (EVH) and exercise challenge tests (ECTs) confirmed the diagnosis with a 46% sensitivity and 74% specificity, and 51% sensitivity and 84% specificity, respectively, while methacholine BPTs were 55% sensitive and 56% specific. If EVH was the reference standard, the presence of LAD symptoms was 78% sensitive and 45% specific for a positive EVH, while ECTs were 42% sensitive and 82% specific. If ECTs were the reference standard, the presence of LAD symptoms was 80% sensitive and 56% specific for a positive ECT, while EVH demonstrated 65% sensitivity and 65% specificity for a positive ECT.ConclusionIn the assessment of LAD in athletes, EVH and field-based ECTs offer similar and moderate diagnostic test performance. In contrast, methacholine BPTs have lower overall test performance.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170915.
|
|
