Skip to main content

Table 7 Results of Meta-Analyses in Aerobic Exercise and HIV Systematic Review: Psychological Outcomes

From: Effectiveness of aerobic exercise for adults living with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis using the Cochrane Collaboration protocol

Outcomes

Sub-Group Comparison of Meta-Analysis

# of Individual Studies Included in Meta-Analysis

Number of Participants Included in Meta-Analysis

Domain

Weighted Mean Difference (WMD)

95 % Confidence Interval

P value of overall effect

I2 statistic (p value for heterogeneity)

Interpretation

Health-Related Quality of Life (SF36 Questionnaire)

Aerobic (constant or interval) exercise or combined aerobic and PRE compared with no exercise

2 studies (Maharaj 2011 [29])

59

General Health

4.73

1.72, 7.74

0.002a

0 %

(p = 0.78)

Significant improvement in change in General Health subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Mental Health

11.58b

1.35, 21.81

0.03a

87 %

(p = 0.006)

Significant (and potential clinically important) improvement in change in Mental Health subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Role Physical

6.56

3.17, 9.96

0.0002a

0 %

(p = 0.53)

Significant improvement in change in Role Physical subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Role Emotional

10.95b

8.19, 13.71

<0.0001a

0 %

(p = 0.40)

Significant (and potential clinically important) improvement in change in Role Emotional subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Pain

−6.59

−9.83, −3.36

<0.0001a

0 %

(p = 0.40)

Significant reduction in change in Pain subscale score favouring non-exercisers compared with exercisers.

59

Physical Functioning

16.30b

6.89, 25.72

0.0007a

67 %

(p = 0.08)

Significant (and potential clinically important) improvement in change in physical function subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Social Functioning

2.73

−4.84, 10.30

0.48

57 %

(p = 0.13)

No difference in change in Social Functioning subscale score among exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

59

Energy/Vitality

5.03

1.33, 8.72

0.008a

0 %

(p = 71)

Significant improvement in change in Energy/Vitality subscale score favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

472

Overall Pooled Effect SF36 Subscale Scores

6.47

3.18, 9.75

<0.00001a

87 %

(p < 0.00001)

Significant improvement in SF36 subscale scores favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

Profile of Mood States (POMS) Scale

Aerobic (constant or interval) exercise compared with no exercise

2 studies (LaPerriere 1990 [35, 36]; Smith 2001 [40])

65

POMS Scale

−7.68b

−13.47, −1.90

0.009a

94 %

(p < 0.0001)

Significant (and potential clinically important) improvement in depression-dejection scores favouring exercisers compared with non-exercisers.

  1. aindicates statistical significance
  2. bindicates potential clinically important improvement in outcome