Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24319641›Full record

ArticleCurrent translational geriatrics and experimental gerontology reports2013

Interventions to Improve Walking in Older Adults.

Jennifer S Brach, Jessie M Vanswearingen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current translational geriatrics and experimental gerontology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Effects of Real-Time Haptic Feedback on Gait and Cognitive Load in Older Adults.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jennifer S Brach
Jessie M Vanswearingen

Funding

VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
Gait Variability: Epidemiology, Assessment &ManagementK23AG026766 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BRACH, JENNIFER S · 2005 to 2009
$775k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG026766NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interventions to improve walking in older adults have historically been multifactorial (i.e. strengthening, endurance and flexibility programs) focusing on improving the underlying impairments. These impairment-based programs have resulted in only modest improvements in walking. In older adults, walking is slow, less stable, inefficient, and the timing and coordination of stepping with postures and phases of gait is poor. We argue the timing and coordination problems are evidence of the loss of motor skill in walking. Taking a lesson from the sports world and from neurorehabilitation, task-oriented motor learning exercise is an essential component of training to improve motor skill and may be a beneficial approach to improving walking in older adults. In this article we: 1) briefly review the current literature regarding impairment-based interventions for improving mobility, 2) discuss why the results have been only modest, and 3) suggest an alternative approach to intervention (i.e. task oriented motor learning).

Indexed as

agingexercisemotor learningwalking

Identifiers

PMID24319641
PMCPMC3851025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.