This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

73/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Several animal studies have showed the beneficial effects of physical exercise (PE) on brain function and health. Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, characterized by the presence of aggregated extracellular amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles, with progressive cognitive decline. Therapeutic approaches such as PE showed to be effective in halting AD progression. Here, we present a systematic review about PE and AD. The search was carried out using the PubMed and LILACS databases. The following keywords were used: Alzheimer; PE; animal model. All found studies adopted aerobic exercise training as the PE protocol (100%). We identified running on treadmill as the most commonly used PE routine (62.5%). The duration of each session, intensity, frequency, and period of training most used were 60 min/day (62.5%), moderate intensity (87.5%), 5 days/week (62.5%), and 4 (37.5%) or 12 (37.5%) weeks, respectively. The AD animal models most used were the Tg APP/PS1ΔE9 (25%), models based on i.c.v. infusion of AβOs (25%) and streptozotocin (25%). All protocols used rodents to their experiments (100%), but mice were the most common (62.5%). Finally, the main results presented in all studies were capable to reduce significantly AD consequences, such as reducing Aβ or pro-inflammatory proteins levels (100%). The lack of resistance training protocols in animal models of AD indicates a huge gap that should be investigated in future studies. We suggest that PE protocols must be adapted according to the specie, lineage and life span of the animal.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

De Sousa, R. A. L., Rodrigues, C. M., Mendes, B. F., Improta-Caria, A. C., Peixoto, M. F. D., & Cassilhas, R. C. (2021). Physical exercise protocols in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review. Metabolic brain disease. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11011-020-00633-z

Vancouver

De Sousa RAL, Rodrigues CM, Mendes BF, Improta-Caria AC, Peixoto MFD, Cassilhas RC. Physical exercise protocols in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review. Metabolic brain disease. 2021. doi:10.1007/s11011-020-00633-z. PMID: 33095371.

BibTeX

@article{desousa2021-33095371,
  author  = {De Sousa, Ricardo Augusto Leoni and Rodrigues, Cíntia Maria and Mendes, Bruno Ferreira and Improta-Caria, Alex Cleber and Peixoto, Marco Fabrício Dias and Cassilhas, Ricardo Cardoso},
  title   = {{Physical exercise protocols in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review}},
  journal = {Metabolic brain disease},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11011-020-00633-z},
  pmid    = {33095371},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11011-020-00633-z}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “62.5%; 87.5%; 37.5%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Finally, the main results presented in all studies were capable to reduce significantly AD consequences, such as reducing Aβ or pro-inflammatory proteins levels (100%).
We suggest that PE protocols must be adapted according to the specie, lineage and life span of the animal.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Effect size62.5%; 87.5%; 37.5%
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 73/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 73 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Metabolic brain disease)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33095371)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	41 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 73 out of 100.
Total	73 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Prevention trials from nearby years

Also tagged “exercise-training”

125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →