ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2021
Evaluating the Feasibility and Effects of a Short-Term Task Specific Power Training With and Without Cognitive Training Among Older Adults With Slow Gait Speed: A Pilot Study.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Dual-Task and Single-Task Interventions on Physical and Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Scoping Review.Journal of aging research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the feasibility and efficacy of short-term functional power training and further examine whether the addition of cognitive training targeting sustained attention and inhibitory control would augment the effect on the outcomes.
designRandomized pilot study.
settingClinical research facility.
participantsCommunity-dwelling primary care patients (N=25) aged >65 years with mobility limitation within the VA Boston Healthcare System.
interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to either functional power training (n=14) or functional power+cognitive training (n=11), offered 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Session durations were either 70 minutes (functional power+cognitive training) or 40 minutes (functional power training).
main outcome measuresWe evaluated feasibility (dropouts, attendance), mobility performance (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]), leg power [stair climb test]), dynamic balance [figure-of-8], and gait characteristics [gait speed, stance time, step width, swing time, step length, variabilities under single-task and dual-task conditions]). Nonparametric analyses were used to compare overall pre-post changes and between-group differences.
resultsOf the 39 veterans screened, 25 were randomized and enrolled. Twenty-one men with a mean age 76±7 years completed the study; 86% were white. Participants had a mean SPPB score of 8.3±1.6 out of 12. For those completing the study, overall attendance was 79%. Among all participants, clinically relevant and/or statistically significant median change in mobility performance (∆1 point), leg power (∆25.0W), dynamic balance (∆-1.1s), and gait characteristics (gait speed [∆0.08s, ∆0.09s], step length [∆1.9cm, ∆3.8cm], and stance time [∆-0.02s, ∆-0.05s] under single- and dual-task, respectively) were observed after 6 weeks of training. There were no statistically significant group differences in dropouts, attendance rate, or any of the outcomes based on cognitive training status.
conclusionsShort-term functional power training with or without a cognitive training led to clinically meaningful improvements in mobility performance, leg power, dynamic balance, and gait characteristics. These findings add to the body of evidence supporting the benefits of functional power training on clinically relevant outcomes. Additional cognitive training did not have an added effect on the study outcomes from our study. Further research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.