Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25355074›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2015

Effects of protein supplementation in older adults undergoing resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Débora Finger, Fernanda Reistenbach Goltz, Daniel Umpierre, Elisabeth Meyer, Luis Henrique Telles Rosa, Cláudia Dornelles Schneider

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Débora FingerUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Rua Sarmento Leite, 245, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, CEP, 90050-170, Brazil.
Fernanda Reistenbach Goltz
Daniel Umpierre
Elisabeth Meyer
Luis Henrique Telles Rosa
Cláudia Dornelles Schneider
Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BRFundação Universitária de Cardiologia · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder individuals present reductions in muscle mass and physical function, as well as a blunted muscle protein synthesis response to amino acid administration and physical activity. Although resistance training is an effective intervention to slow down muscle impairments in the elderly, there is no consensus whether a combination with protein supplementation could offer additional benefits to an older population.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically summarize and quantify whether protein supplementation could optimize the effects of resistance training on muscle mass and strength in an aged population.

designA structured literature search was conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS databases. The search had no period or language restrictions. Inclusion criteria comprised study design (randomized controlled trials-RCTs), sample mean age (60 years and over) and intervention (a resistance training program for a period of 6 weeks or longer combined with protein or amino acids supplementation). Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. Continuous data on fat-free mass, muscle mass and muscle strength were pooled using a random-effects model.

resultsOf the 540 articles reviewed, 29 eligible articles underwent full-text evaluation. Nine RCTs (462 subjects) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean age of the participants ranged from 61 to 79 years old. Protein supplementation protocols varied widely throughout the studies. Three studies used quantities related to the body mass of the participants and the other six trials provided supplements in daily amounts, independently of subjects' body masses. Overall, protein supplementation in combination with resistance training was associated with gains in fat-free mass, resulting in a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.42]. However, protein supplementation was not associated with changes in muscle mass (0.14, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.32) or muscle strength (0.13, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.32). LIMITATIONS: Studies among the very elderly population are scarce. The variation regarding the supplementation protocol, namely the different protein sources, amounts and timing of ingestion, also made it harder to compare the results. The general quality of the studies was low, reflecting increased risk of bias in some studies. Despite these limitations, this systematic review provides a general overview of the role of protein supplementation with no other added macronutrients to augment muscle mass and strength during resistance training in older adults.

conclusionCombining protein supplementation with resistance training is effective for eliciting gains in fat-free mass among older adults, but does not seem to increase muscle mass or strength.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsResistance TrainingAgedBody Mass IndexDietary ProteinsHumansMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthDietary Proteins

Identifiers

PMID25355074
OpenAlexW2063151187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.