Estimulação elétrica é eficaz para prevenir ou tratar dor muscular tardia em atletas e adultos destreinados? Revisão sistemática com metanálise e revisão metodológica com análise de SPIN em resumos de ensaios controlados aleatorizados

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Menezes, Mayara Alves
• Orientador(a): Santana, Josimari Melo De
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde
• Palavras-chave em Português: Dor muscular tardia; Ensaio controlado aleatorizado; Qualidade do relato; Recuperação muscular; Resumo; Superinterpretação; Terapia por estimulação elétrica
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Abstract; Delayed-onset muscle soreness; Electrical stimulation therapy; Muscle recovery; Quality of reporting; Randomized clinical trial; SPIN
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE
• Link de acesso: https://ri.ufs.br/jspui/handle/riufs/18527

The effectiveness of electrical stimulation (ES) on delayed muscle soreness (DOMS) and impact of EE on muscle recovery in athletes and untrained adults remain unclear. Moreover, the literature deals with the spin phenomenon, which is the intentional or unintentional distorted interpretation of the results of study by authors who emphasize the beneficial effects of intervention. The presence of spin in studies may provide professionals and patients with unrealistic expectations about treatments. In view of this, the objective of this thesis was to investigate the effectiveness of ES in the prevention or treatment of DOMS and recovery of muscle function from a systematic review with meta-analysis. Furthermore, we investigated the presence of spin and the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about EE on DOMS from a systematic methodological review. To this end, a systematic search of articles in databases (PubMed, Medline, CEN-TRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, LILACS, SPORTDiscus) updated on March 31, 2021 was performed. RCTs with untrained adults and athletes with DOMS treated with ES and compared with placebo, sham, or control groups were included. Risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration ROB 1 tool) and quality of evidence (GRADE) were analyzed for the systematic review. For the methodological systematic review, we analyzed: the quality of reporting (CONSORT-A), inconsistencies between abstract and full text (Spin-checklist), and methodological quality of RCTs (PEDro scale). In addition, we analyzed: the association between studies with negative results and the presence of spin (Fisher's exact test), consistency between abstract and full text, as well as among investigators (Kappa coefficient). Fourteen studies (n=435) were included in the reviews and 12 studies (n=389) were pooled in the meta-analysis. Evidence of very low to low quality indicates that ES does not prevent or treat DOMS, as well as ES does not help promote muscle recovery immediately, 24, 48, 72, 96 hours after the intervention. In most studies, the risk of bias is uncertain and heterogeneity ranged from low to high. Only one study monitored adverse events. The mean score of the RCTs on the PEDro scale was 5.35. Abstracts scored 1.14 pontos (95% IC 0.39 a 1.88) more spin than the full text. The abstracts of the RCTs scored significantly lower -4,0 (95% IC -5,34 a -2,66) in the quality of reporting compared to full text. Abstracts were not consistent with full text (Kappa agreement: 0,65 to 0,40). Agreement between researchers was substantial (Kappa agreement: 0,68 to 0,71). Besides, the presence of spin in abstracts was associated with negative outcomes in two items on the Spin-checklist. This thesis concludes that there are no recommendations supporting the use of ES in the prevention or treatment of DOMS and muscle recovery in untrained adults and athletes. In addition, abstracts of RCTs on ES in DMT are underreported and inconsistent with full text.