Clinical evidence dossier
Aerobic exercise
BMI
Evidence signal
Authoritative evidence signal
strong
This is an authoritative evidence signal supplied by Clinical Reference. It is not a formal clinical grade, treatment recommendation, or pooled effect estimate.
Evidence snapshot
- Authoritative support records
- 3
- Supporting studies available for review
- 3
- Randomized trials
- 2
- Reported effects
- 7
Clinical conclusion
Aerobic exercise shows a moderate positive evidence signal for improving BMI across the studied comparisons.
The conclusion and evidence-signal classification are distinct authoritative fields and are reproduced as published.
Observed effects
Observed study estimates; not a pooled treatment effect.
Change from baseline
Absolute change
-2 to -2 %
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 1
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 1
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
consistent
- Positive
- 3
- No effect
- 0
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 0
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.
This population information refers to the materialized supporting studies available for review. Omitted support records remain part of the authoritative support accounting and are available through the audit experience.
View reported population descriptions
These descriptions are reported across the supporting studies; they are not a single synthesized population.
- Middle-aged men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
- Individuals seeking to improve metabolic health through physical activity.
- Adults diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Individuals with varying levels of baseline insulin resistance.
- Adults aged 30-65 with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.
- Individuals seeking to improve sleep quality and metabolic health through exercise.
Limitations
- 1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.
- Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.
- 1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
- 2 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.
- 1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.