Domains of physical activity and all-cause mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies

Background The dose–response relation between physical activity and all-cause mortality is not well defined at present. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association with all-cause mortality of different domains of physical activity and of defined increases in physical activity and energy expenditure. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to September 2010 for cohort studies examining all-cause mortality across different domains and levels of physical activity in adult general populations. We estimated combined risk ratios (RRs) associated with defined increments and recommended levels, using random-effects meta-analysis and dose–response meta-regression models. Results Data from 80 studies with 1 338 143 participants (118 121 deaths) were included. Combined RRs comparing highest with lowest activity levels were 0.65 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.60–0.71] for total activity, 0.74 (95% CI 0.70–0.77) for leisure activity, 0.64 (95% CI 0.55–0.75) for activities of daily living and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.97) for occupational activity. RRs per 1-h increment per week were 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94) for vigorous exercise and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93–0.98) for moderate-intensity activities of daily living. RRs corresponding to 150 and 300 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity were 0.86 (95% CI 0.80–0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65–0.85), respectively. Mortality reductions were more pronounced in women. Conclusion Higher levels of total and domain-specific physical activity were associated with reduced all-cause mortality. Risk reduction per unit of time increase was largest for vigorous exercise. Moderate-intensity activities of daily living were to a lesser extent beneficial in reducing mortality.

Simulation in training: one-year experience using an efficiency index to assess interventional radiology fellow training status

PURPOSE: To compare objective fellow and expert efficiency indices for an interventional radiology renal artery stenosis skill set with the use of a high-fidelity simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Mentice VIST simulator was used for three different renal artery stenosis simulations of varying difficulty, which were used to grade performance. Fellows' indices at three intervals throughout 1 year were compared to expert baseline performance. Seventy-four simulated procedures were performed, 63 of which were captured as audiovisual recordings. Three levels of fellow experience were analyzed: 1, 6, and 12 months of dedicated interventional radiology fellowship. The recordings were compiled on a computer workstation and analyzed. Distinct measurable events in the procedures were identified with task analysis, and data regarding efficiency were extracted. Total scores were calculated as the product of procedure time, fluoroscopy time, tools, and contrast agent volume. The lowest scores, which reflected efficient use of tools, radiation, and time, were considered to indicate proficiency. Subjective analysis of participants' procedural errors was not included in this analysis. RESULTS: Fellows' mean scores diminished from 1 month to 12 months (42,960 at 1 month, 18,726 at 6 months, and 9,636 at 12 months). The experts' mean score was 4,660. In addition, the range of variance in score diminished with increasing experience (from a range of 5,940-120,156 at 1 month to 2,436-85,272 at 6 months and 2,160-32,400 at 12 months). Expert scores ranged from 1,450 to 10,800. CONCLUSIONS: Objective efficiency indices for simulated procedures can demonstrate scores directly comparable to the level of clinical experience.