Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 4;2020(4):CD010596. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010596.pub3

Ciloğlu 2005.

Methods Study design: parallel‐group randomised controlled trial
Location, number of centres: Genlab Medical Diagnostics and Research Laboratory
Country: Turkey
Study period: September to November
Methods of analysis: "the participants had anthropometrical measurements in the fasting state. Body weight and height were measured on standard scale with an attached ruler wearing light clothes and no shoes. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms (kg) divided by the square of the height in metres (m). Waist circumference was measured using a flexible measuring tape at the umbilicus level with the participants standing straight, arms at their sides and feet together. Body fat mass and fat free mass were determined by bioelectric impedance. During the supervised sessions, participants were noted for and asked about upper respiratory infection symptoms of runny stuffy nose, sore throat, coughing, sneezing coloured discharge and fever. Those who were in the non‐exercise group were phoned weekly for the same data collection. Number of URTI episodes and the number of URTI days per episode were recorded for each participant. An episode of URTI was defined as having the symptoms for more than 2 days and separated by at least 5 days from the previous episode. The saliva samples were collected prior to starting the study and at the end of the 12 weeks each time after the mouth had been rinsed thoroughly with distilled water. The saliva samples were frozen at ‐20°C and stored until the end of the study period. Salivary IgA concentrations were measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method (Immulon II; Dynex Technologies, Chantilly, Virginia, USA)"
Statistical analysis: not stated
Participants Recruitment means: volunteers from the routine check‐up from the laboratory
Target participants: postmenopausal women
N screened: 90 postmenopausal women
N completed: 90 postmenopausal women
Gender
F = 90: indoor exercise 30, outdoor exercise 30, control 30
Age: indoor exercise 55.0 ± 3.5, outdoor exercise 54.6 ± 2.1, control 54.9 ± 3.8
Exclusion criteria: "excluded for chronic disease, any medications including vitamins, having received the flu shot and having smoked cigarettes within the last 2 years"
Baseline details: age, weight, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass, fat‐free mass, number of URTI episodes, number of URTI days per episode
Interventions Setting of intervention: Genlab Medical Diagnostics and Research Laboratory
Description of intervention: "both the indoor and outdoor exercise groups underwent supervised exercise sessions 5 days a week for 30 minutes each time walking on a treadmill or an outdoor tract respectively at 60% of their maximal heart rate as determined by the simple formula of Maximal Heart Rate = 220 ‐ age. Heart rate measurements were done with a Polar Heart Rate Monitor"
Delivered by: supervised sessions
Follow‐up period: 12 weeks
Co‐interventions: none
Outcomes Salivary IgA levels and the incidence of URTIs
Follow‐up period: 12 weeks
Notes Study funding: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk The authors did not explain how the random sequence was generated. "They were divided into three groups ... with each group having similar characteristics and randomly assigned."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information regarding allocation concealment was provided in the text.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk The participants could not be blinded due to the characteristics of the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Outcomes measured by participant self‐report.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk There was no loss of data in the outcomes analysed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk The outcomes prespecified in the methods were reported in the results.
Other bias Low risk The study seems to be free of other sources of bias.