1.
Effect of menstrual cycle on resting metabolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Benton, MJ, Hutchins, AM, Dawes, JJ
PloS one. 2020;15(7):e0236025
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) plays a key role in energy balance and weight management. For more than 20 years, researchers have controlled for menstrual cycle fluctuations when designing studies that require measurement of RMR in young women. In fact, data regarding the influence of menstrual cycle on metabolism are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyse existing research to determine whether the menstrual cycle influences RMR in women. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of thirty studies. Results show that when all studies were considered, the menstrual cycle exerted a small, but statistically significant effect on RMR in women. Specifically, RMR was found to be greater during the luteal phase compared to the follicular phase. However, when only larger studies (of more than 10 women) were considered, the effect of the menstrual cycle was slightly reduced, and when only studies published since 2000 were considered, the effect was even smaller and no longer significant. Authors conclude that researchers should be aware of the potential confounding influence of the menstrual cycle and control for it by testing consistently in one phase of the cycle when measuring RMR in premenopausal women.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The need to control for the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase on resting metabolism (RMR) places a burden on research participants who must self-report onset of menstruation and researchers who must schedule metabolic testing accordingly. PURPOSE To systematically review and analyze existing research to determine the effect of menstrual cycle on RMR. METHODS We searched PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus databases using the search terms "menstrual cycle and metabolic rate" and "menstrual cycle and energy expenditure." Eligibility criteria were English language, single-group repeated measures design, and RMR as either a primary or secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed based on study sample, measurement, and control of confounders. Differences between the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle were analyzed using the standardized mean difference in effect size. RESULTS Thirty English-language studies published between 1930 and December 2019 were included in the systematic review, and 26 studies involving 318 women were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a small but significant effect favoring increased RMR in the luteal phase (ES = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.17, 0.49, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION Limitations include risk of bias regarding measurement of both menstrual cycle and RMR. Sample sizes were small and studies did not report control of potential confounders. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that in more recent studies published since 2000, the effect of menstrual phase was reduced and not statistically significant (ES = 0.23; 95% CI = -0.00, 0.47; p = 0.055). Until larger and better designed studies are available, based on our current findings, researchers should be aware of the potential confounding influence of the menstrual cycle and control for it by testing consistently in one phase of the cycle when measuring RMR in pre-menopausal women.
2.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive and behavioral interventions to improve sleep health in adults without sleep disorders.
Murawski, B, Wade, L, Plotnikoff, RC, Lubans, DR, Duncan, MJ
Sleep medicine reviews. 2018;40:160-169
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Sleep is important for good health but more than a quarter of the adult population reports poor quality sleep. This review and meta-analysis looked at cognitive and behavioural interventions in adults who report poor sleep but are not diagnosed with a clinical sleep disorder. The most commonly used interventions were stress management/relaxation, meditation, controlled breathing and stimulus control. A meta-analysis showed a medium improvement of overall sleep quality and a small but significant improvement of subjective sleep quality and duration with cognitive and behavioural interventions. The effects were bigger when sleep at baseline was worse. Effects of mode of delivery, study duration and the inclusion of a relaxation component were not assessed, due to insufficient numbers. The authors conclude that there is room for improvements of cognitive and behavioural interventions and call for more investigations into this.
Abstract
Many adults without a diagnosed sleep disorder report poor sleep health, which is defined by dissatisfactory levels of sleep duration, sleep quality, or the timing of sleep. No previous review has summarized and described interventions targeting poor sleep health in this population. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the efficacy of behavioral and cognitive sleep interventions in adults with poor sleep health, who do not have a sleep disorder. Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl) were searched with restrictions for age (18-64 y) and English language full-text, resulting in 18,009 records being screened and 592 full-texts being assessed. Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, seven of which reported a measure of overall sleep health (Pittsburgh sleep quality index [PSQI]). Following appraisal for risk of bias, extracted data were meta-analyzed using random-effects models. Meta-analyses showed interventions had a medium effect on sleep quality (Hedge's g = -0.54, [95% confidence interval (CI)] -0.90 to -0.19, p < 0.01). Baseline sleep health was the only significant effect moderator (p = 0.01). The most frequently used intervention components were stress management and relaxation practice, stimulus control, sleep hygiene, and exercise. Interventions targeting cognitive and behavioral self-regulation improve sleep quality in adults without clinical sleep disorder.