SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “city planning”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

113 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effects of lavender oil preparation silexan on different symptoms of major depression - results from a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by depressed mood, anhedonia, and loss of energy, which can be accompanied by associated symptoms and co-morbidities. Psychiatric scales such as the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) must account for the complex nature of depression. METHODS: The MADRS total score change between baseline and week 8 was the primary outcome measure in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial investigating the antidepressant efficacy of 8 weeks' treatment with silexan compared to sertraline and placebo in patients with mild or moderate MDD. We report on a pre-planned, exploratory analysis of the individual MADRS items. Treatment effects were assessed using analyses of covariance with baseline adjustment, based on an estimand strategy. RESULTS: 498 subjects (silexan 170, sertraline 171, placebo 157) were treated and analyzed. After 8 weeks, silexan was superior to placebo for 5 out of the 9 MADRS items analyzed ("apparent sadness", "reported sadness", "reduced appetite", "concentration difficulties", "lassitude"; P < .05) and showed clinically important adjusted mean value differences >0.2 points for 7 out of the 9 items. Item-level results for silexan and sertraline were mainly comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Silexan had a strong over-all antidepressant effect, with the most pronounced improvements affecting the cardinal symptoms of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT2020-000688-22 first entered on 12/08/2020. Significance statement Patients with depressive disorders can show many different symptoms. To better characterize the clinical action of an antidepressant, it is therefore important to analyze not only the overall value of a depression scale but also the individual items that describe these symptoms. Silexan is a preparation from lavender oil whose antidepressant effect has been proven in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week study in patients with mild or moderate major depressive disorder. Based on the individual items of the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale that was used as the main outcome for efficacy, we found in an exploratory, hypothesis-generating analysis that silexan had a rather broad antidepressant effect in the participants of our study, with potentially clinically meaningful advantages over placebo for 7 out of the 9 individual items investigated. This applied in particular to the main symptoms of depression, namely sadness and lassitude. Our single-item analysis thus helps to understand the antidepressant effects of silexan in more detail. Significant outcomes In patients with mild to moderate major depressive disorder, lavender oil preparation silexan has a clinical profile similar to that of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor sertraline based on an item-level analysis of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Silexan has a significant antidepressant effect that includes an alleviation of depressed mood, anhedonia, and loss of energy, the cardinal symptoms of depression. The broad improvement of symptoms of depression could not be explained by the proven anxiolytic efficacy silexan alone but indicates an independent, direct antidepressant effect. The present item-level analysis provides valuable and detailed additional insights into the therapeutic profiles of silexan and sertraline and may help clinicians to tailor antidepressant treatment to the specific symptoms of a patient. Limitations For item-level analyses of the MADRS, no validated thresholds for the assessment of the clinical importance of changes over time have been defined, taking into account that different items may have different thresholds. Even though our analyses were pre-defined, they were exploratory and did not include studywise type I error level control. Their generalizability beyond the study population is therefore limited.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ifebemtinib is a potent oral focal adhesion kinase inhibitor. Preclinical evidence supports combining ifebemtinib with the KRASG12C inhibitor garsorasib. This study aimed to evaluate this combination in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. METHODS: This multicentre, phase 1b/2 study had a phase 1b component to establish the recommended phase 2 dose and a phase 2 multitumour expansion component. In phase 1b, the safety and tolerability of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib was assessed using a 3 + 3 design in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed, and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as ifebemtinib 100 mg orally once daily plus garsorasib 600 mg orally twice daily. Here, we report the results of the cohort of previously treated KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer from phase 2 expansion. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer harbouring the KRASG12C mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 or 1, and had disease progression after previous irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy, were recruited from seven of nine participating tertiary hospitals in China. On the basis of the recommended phase 2 dose, phase 2 comprised a single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ifebemtinib combined with garsorasib and an open-label, randomised study in which patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ifebemtinib plus garsorasib or garsorasib alone, by use of centralised computer-generated block randomisation with no stratification. Investigators were masked to the block size. The primary efficacy endpoint of phase 2 was investigator-assessed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1), assessed in the safety analysis set in the single-arm study and in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population) in the randomised study. At least six objective responses (safety analysis set) were required in the single-arm study to proceed to the randomised study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06166836 and NCT05379946, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2023 and Dec 13, 2024, 51 patients were enrolled in phase 2 (15 in the single-arm study and 36 in the randomised study). In the single-arm study, the median age was 53 years (IQR 39 to 63), nine (60%) patients were female, six (40%) were male, and all were Asian. In the randomised study, the median age was 51 years (IQR 42 to 59) in the combination group and 63 years (IQR 54 to 66) in the monotherapy group, 24 (67%) were female, 12 (33%) were male, and all patients were Asian. In the single-arm part, the confirmed objective response rate was 46·7% (95% CI 21·3 to 73·4). Seven patients had partial responses, triggering progression to the randomised study. In the randomised study, the confirmed objective response rate was 38·9% (95% CI 17·3 to 64·3) with the combination therapy versus 16·7% (95% CI 3·6 to 41·4) with garsorasib alone (between-group difference 22·2%, 95% CI -7·7 to 49·1; one-sided p=0·068). In the single-arm study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (27%) of 15 patients, and in the randomised study, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six (33%) of 18 patients in the combination group and five (28%) of 18 in the garsorasib group. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least two patients were diarrhoea (six [18%]), proteinuria (two [6%]), and intestinal obstruction (two [6%]) in patients treated with combination therapy (combined), and increased alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyltransferase (two [11%] each) in patients treated with garsorasib alone. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (30%) patients in the combination group and in four (22%) patients in the monotherapy group. One patient in the garsorasib monotherapy group died due to the underlying malignancy within 30 days after completing study treatment, which was reported as a serious adverse event. The death was assessed by the investigators as not related to garsorasib. No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported across all cohorts. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ifebemtinib and garsorasib showed promising anticancer activity and manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the improvement in response rate did not reach statistical significance in the randomised study, these findings support further evaluation of ifebemtinib plus garsorasib in this population. FUNDING: InxMed, InventisBio, National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Jian Bing Ling Yan + X Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, and the Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗