Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with no exercise | Risk with resistance training | ||||
Grip strength (at study completion) assessed with: hand dynamometer. Follow-up: range 6–24 weeks | Mean grip strength (at study completion) in the control group was 17.7 kg | Mean grip strength (at study completion) in the intervention group was 1.35 kg higher (0.84 lower to 3.54 higher) | 350 (5 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ moderatea | MD 1.35 kg (95% CI = –0.84, 3.54). Relative increase 8% with resistance exercise (95% CI = –5% weaker, 20% stronger). MCID for grip strength is 20%b |
Hand pain (at study completion) assessed with: AUSCAN pain, 11-point NRS, Likert scale. Lower scores mean less pain. Follow-up: range 6–16 weeks | Pain score in the resistance training groups was on average –0.23 SDs (–0.42 lower to –0.04 lower) lower than in the control groups.e | 379 (5 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ lowa,c | These results can be interpreted as an improvement of 0.46 (95% CI = 0.08, 0.84) points on a 11-point NRS scale.d MCID for pain is 2 points [39] | |
Hand function (at study completion) assessed with: AUSCAN function, FIHOA. Lower scores mean better function. Follow-up: range 6–16 weeks | The function score in the resistance training groups was on average –0.10 SDs (–0.33 lower to 0.13 higher) lower than in the control groups. | 363 (4 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ lowa,c | As a rule of thumb, 0.2 SDs represents a small difference, 0.5 a moderate difference, and 0.8 a large difference |